Alternatives to Megascale for movement

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

I've never used the velocity based DCV rules, personally, but given that most high movement characters are going to speedsters with high base DCVs from a high DEX anyway I'm not sure that the problem is all that bad. What's a reasonable DCV on the galactic champions scale? There were published 250 point starter heroes for 4th edition that had a base DCV of 10; it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me (considering combat levels and so forth) that even a "normal" Champions character might get a DCV in that sort of range. YMMV.

 

Of course the simple answer to this question is the same answer to the question, "How can the brick defeat a martial artist with a DCV 5 points higher than the brick's OCV?" - use attacks that bypass that DCV. Area effects, mental powers (not for bricks, obviously...), or just some good old combat skill levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

If a brick must pay +5 points to double his STR' date=' why can't a flying speedster pay +5 points (or whatever number is felt to be balanced) to double his movement? Why is movement on a linear scale when STR (and by implication other attack powers) are exponential? Remember movement [b']is[/b] an attack power in the same way STR is - Move By and Move Through ensure that.

 

"Why can they make a potato chip in under a second, but it takes us months to develop software?"

 

STR and movement are not the same thing. By the book, a character with +5 STR is twice as string. But, by the book, this manifests precisely only in the amount he can lift. He cannot propel his body twice as far with a leap - he only adds +1" to his leap. He cannot inflict twice as much harm on an opponent - he only adds 1d6 to his damage.

 

If we went to a rule where +5 points doubles movement, we would first need to establish a base movement. For running, we have 6", and we all start with 2" swimming. Base leaping is based on STR. Flight, gliding, teleportation, etc. all have no base. Where do they start, and how much does that base cost?

 

We would then, of course, get complaints about the lack of granularity. I want a character who can run at 9", not 6" or 12". Why can't the system support that?

 

Next, if we double movement for every +5 points, doesn't Knockback "movement" need to be based on a doubling mechanism, as well?

 

Now, these all dovetail with damage. If we're going to change the movement rates, we need to change the damage addition formuli. I guess we could make Move By's +1d6 for base movement, and a further +1d6 per doubling of movement. Move throughs could be -1 OCV, and another -1 per movement doubling, with +2d6 damage base and another +2d6 per doubling of movement. Running into a wall needs to be addressed as well - that would be 1d6 per base inch, with the same number of dice added for each doubling, I suppose.

 

Do we need to revise the falling rules to take these new velocity rules into account? I guess so - at least the damage from the sudden stop at the bottom needs to be revised. So does the reduction for leaping, or for catching someone.

 

Of course, all the acceleration, deceleration and turn mode rules will need to be revised to take these higher base movement rates into account.

 

There are probably some ripples I've missed (bet on it!).

 

Could it be done? Sure.

 

Is there a huge ripple effect to consider? Absolutely.

 

Is the benefit enough to justify the complexity of the change? Matter of opinion - I lean towards "no, the present system works well enough".

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

STR and movement are not the same thing. By the book, a character with +5 STR is twice as string.

I assume you mean "strong".

 

Obviously STR and movement are not the same thing; I'm not advocating that someone with Flight should be able to deadlift a tank. But both are used to bash people, and their use in this fashion is inconsistent. If you don't use the velocity based damage rules, then you get very strange results: the higher your SPD stat, the less damage you do on a Move By even if you hit them at exactly the same (real world) speed.

 

For example, let's say you can move 60" in a Turn. If you have SPD 6, that's 10" of (say) Flight, or +2d6 on a Move By. If you have SPD 4, that's 15" of Flight, or +3d6. That's the sort of nonsense that the velocity based damage rules address.

 

But once you use the velocity based damage rules, you run into the issue that doubling your movement speed is (often) much more expensive than the extra +2d6 damage you get is worth. The majority of powers add +2d6 if you spend 10 more Active Points; why does movement not work this way?

 

He cannot propel his body twice as far with a leap - he only adds +1" to his leap.

Correct; leaping would work with the same doubling mechanism that other powers do if my proposal were adopted.

 

He cannot inflict twice as much harm on an opponent - he only adds 1d6 to his damage.

Arguably that is twice as much harm. Abstract numbers and all that; if STUN and BODY are on an exponential scale as well, +1d6 damage can feasibly look like twice as much harm. (Move along, nothing to see here - yes, this is handwaving, but it does appear that this is how we're supposed to interpret things).

 

If we went to a rule where +5 points doubles movement, we would first need to establish a base movement.

My suggestion above was that we have Flight cost 10 points for 20"/Turn. I didn't specifically address other movement powers because they are a variation on the same theme, but for what it's worth I'd probably suggest 20"/Turn Running and 5"/Turn Swimming, though I have no particular axe to grind with the exact figures. Leaping is a bit trickier; you could make a case for saying it should work like Teleport and still be per Phase. You'd either set 2"/Phase or 8"/Turn as the base Leap speed (depending on whether you want leaping to be like teleportation or running), and then every +5 STR doubles it.

 

We would then, of course, get complaints about the lack of granularity. I want a character who can run at 9", not 6" or 12". Why can't the system support that?

I'm not sure this would be a particularly common complaint, given that the overall effect is almost always to make the movement cheaper than the current case.

 

Next, if we double movement for every +5 points, doesn't Knockback "movement" need to be based on a doubling mechanism, as well?

Yes, it should. It's often been pointed out that it's quite difficult to smash your opponent into orbit in Hero.

 

Knockback is easy, though - just take the knockback inches from a normal roll, and backreference the Range Modifier table to see how far back they go.

 

Now, these all dovetail with damage. If we're going to change the movement rates, we need to change the damage addition formuli.

Already done. The velocity based damage rules at the back of the 5th edition book have this information already (including throws and falls, which is relevant for Knockback damage).

 

Of course, all the acceleration, deceleration and turn mode rules will need to be revised to take these higher base movement rates into account.

Arguably. Acceleration/deceleration is no problem (you can currently accelerate your full combat movement in a single phase, and I see no reason not to keep that as a default). Turn modes perhaps get out of hand if they are still based on a linear fraction of total movement, but a simple replacement would be that your turn mode is 2 + 1 per doubling.

 

Is the benefit enough to justify the complexity of the change? Matter of opinion - I lean towards "no, the present system works well enough".

That opinion I have absolutely no problem with - although evidently I disagree with it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

But once you use the velocity based damage rules, you run into the issue that doubling your movement speed is (often) much more expensive than the extra +2d6 damage you get is worth. The majority of powers add +2d6 if you spend 10 more Active Points; why does movement not work this way?

 

Because the primary purpose of movement is to get a character from point A to point B. Adding movement based bonuses to combat damage is an ancillary effect.

 

Most if not all of the issues you have mentioned are addressed as optional rules in either The Ultimate Speedster or The Ultimate Brick.

[Dynamo]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

There's no such thing as "noncombat Energy Blasts" for destroying buildings out of combat' date=' or "noncombat Senses" for seeing further while there's no combat situation occurring [...']

This made me sit up (and bang my head). I'm very intrigued by this idea.

 

Almost all game systems (no counter examples spring to mind anyway) scale the numerical aspects of combat linearly. To do otherwise throws combat out of balance and it rapidly becomes unplayable. In a system meant to portray a genre featuring primarily abilities within a normal human range, there's no problem, but once a system dips into the superheroic genre, a dissonance is generated between the ability ranges demonstrated in the genre media and the need to keep combat playable.

 

So why not differentiate between combat and noncombat feats? I don't think that Non-Combat Movement is the odd man out here, but rather NCM is the only element that's actually done right.

 

So stick this idea in your pipe and smoke it. Share the resultant hallucination.

[LoresLost]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

So why not differentiate between combat and noncombat feats? I don't think that Non-Combat Movement is the odd man out here, but rather NCM is the only element that's actually done right.

 

So stick this idea in your pipe and smoke it. Share the resultant hallucination.

 

Well looking at this and the original quote, to some extent there are NC rules for skills and rules for bracing and careful targeting with extra time (moving up the time chart). Out of combat you get advantages to hit and to do things you would not get in combat. You take extra time you get bonus to do tasks.

 

So to take out a building with your energy blast (SFX dependent) would require demolitions rolls and powerskill rolls and careful targeting of structural elements and extra time, much extra time. Just like imploding a building takes weeks of work before the you get to see a neat building shattering KABOOM, you would need and should need much time to get a similar affect with EB or super strength out of combat.

 

Just my random thoughts on this subject.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

He cannot inflict twice as much harm on an opponent - he only adds 1d6 to his damage.

The difference in harm done by adding extra d6 depend on a number of things.

 

Is a 15d6 EB really 1,024 X as powerful as a 5d6 EB?

 

That depends, against a target with 10 def, it can be infinitely more harmful.

 

Now, these all dovetail with damage. If we're going to change the movement rates, we need to change the damage addition formuli. I guess we could make Move By's +1d6 for base movement, and a further +1d6 per doubling of movement.

Yes it does dovetail with damage, but the rules for that are already taken care of with the Velocity Factor stuff.

 

As the Velocity Factor stuff does things doubling velocity add +2d6, that is because X2 velocity = X4 Kinetic Energy.

 

If we went to a rule where +5 points doubles movement, we would first need to establish a base movement. For running, we have 6", and we all start with 2" swimming. Base leaping is based on STR. Flight, gliding, teleportation, etc. all have no base. Where do they start, and how much does that base cost?

I would suggest that, in order to keep pace with the damage, each doubling of velocity should be 10 points. That slower rate of speed increase would also help keep things from getting off the battle map too quickly.

 

The base velocity should be centered around the average person's velocity (actually I would assume that an average person has 10 points of Running, just like they have 10 points of STR, or 10 points of INT)

 

 

We would then, of course, get complaints about the lack of granularity. I want a character who can run at 9", not 6" or 12". Why can't the system support that?

STR lift doubles for each 5 points, but that doesn't mean you can't have a 13 STR.

 

The actual formula for motion would be:

velocity = 2^(points / 10) X base velocity

 

So yes, you could have quite a bit of flexibility there, although it would probably be helpful to have some sort of chart to figure out exactly how many inches per turn you could move (for those who can't do fractional exponents in their heads )

 

 

 

 

Do we need to revise the falling rules to take these new velocity rules into account? I guess so - at least the damage from the sudden stop at the bottom needs to be revised. So does the reduction for leaping, or for catching someone.

Refer to the Velocity Factor rules in the book. . . .

 

Is the benefit enough to justify the complexity of the change? Matter of opinion - I lean towards "no, the present system works well enough".

In a game designed around a specific setting(s) I would agree.

 

However, for a UNIVERSAL game system which should be able to handle all settings, I think being able to handle higher values for combat movement is very important.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Almost all game systems (no counter examples spring to mind anyway) scale the numerical aspects of combat linearly. To do otherwise throws combat out of balance and it rapidly becomes unplayable.

I disagree.

 

Imagine the exponential scale version of a 48 foot tall giant (8 X as tall as a normal person and 512 X the mass, and 512 X the lifting ability).

 

The exponental scale version has a 55 STR.

 

The linear scale version has a 5,120 STR.

 

Which one is less playable?

[Dynamo]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

I disagree.

 

Imagine the exponential scale version of a 48 foot tall giant (8 X as tall as a normal person and 512 X the mass, and 512 X the lifting ability).

 

The exponental scale version has a 55 STR.

 

The linear scale version has a 5,120 STR.

 

Which one is less playable?

This is exactly the dissonance I mean. A game scaled for normal human ability range encounters difficulties when 48ft giants are added. Hero's exponential STR characteristic provides a conversion from the extrinsic (and exponential) "How Much I Lift" to the abstracted (and linear) "How Much Damage I Do".

 

Nothing about Hero combat is exponential. Not a single thing.

 

GURPS attempts a middle road in the current edition by implementing a "quadratic" Str lift calculation, but the lifting capacity demonstrated by superheroes and 48ft giants still results in a dissonant combat experience without some fancy footwork, game-mechanix-wise.

 

(btw: It could be argued that the square-cube law dictates that your x8-scale giant would only have 640 Str in a linear Str scale, but your example is still valid.)

[Warp9]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

This is exactly the dissonance I mean. A game scaled for normal human ability range encounters difficulties when 48ft giants are added. Hero's exponential STR characteristic provides a conversion from the extrinsic (and exponential) "How Much I Lift" to the abstracted (and linear) "How Much Damage I Do".

 

Nothing about Hero combat is exponential. Not a single thing.

Here is a quote from one of the other related discussions on this matter. . . .

 

Champions 1st edition, copyright 1981. (not 1e Edition), page 49

 

"The standard rule is that each extra die of damage or 5 pts. of STR is twice as powerful as the die before it. This geometric scale should be considered when attempting to add damage or STR together."

It seems that, from this perspective, the damage is also supposed to be non-linear.

[Dynamo]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

It seems that' date=' from this perspective, the damage is also supposed to be non-linear.[/quote']The damage is a linear abstraction of a non-linear extrinsic quantity. This is not a criticism of the Hero system. I think it would fall apart if the numerical aspects of combat were non-linear. Champions 1e was specifically written to simulate a range of ability beyond the normal human range and in fact introduces dissonance when used to portray the normal human range.

 

Problems arise in Hero's portrayal of the superheroic genre from the fact that the linear values in combat calculations do not universally respresent exponential quantities. Military hardware is a particularly heinous example of this. If the characteristics of military weapons were based on exponential values, then our 350 pt beginning superheroes could actually respresent the effectiveness demonstrated in comics against soldiers armed with modern equipment. As it is, any decently equipped and tactically sound platoon will wipe the floor with supers built according to the suggested guidelines for 350 pt games. And don't even bring a tank or a jet fighter to the battlefield.

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Nothing about Hero combat is exponential. Not a single thing.

Range Modifiers.

 

I would assert that they are not the only example (I think damage is, as previously stated), but range modifiers are the least controversial way to rebut this.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Obviously STR and movement are not the same thing; I'm not advocating that someone with Flight should be able to deadlift a tank. But both are used to bash people' date=' and their use in this fashion is inconsistent.[/quote']

 

Ummm...movement is used to MOVE. Adding to damage is incidental, not the "use" of the ability.

 

But once you use the velocity based damage rules' date=' you run into the issue that doubling your movement speed is (often) much more expensive than the extra +2d6 damage you get is worth. The majority of powers add +2d6 if you spend 10 more Active Points; why does movement not work this way?[/quote']

 

+10 points of STR adds 2d6 damage - but it only adds 2" to your Leap. +10 PD doesn't add any damage. Neither does 30 points of life support, or an overall skill level.

 

Arguably that is twice as much harm. Abstract numbers and all that; if STUN and BODY are on an exponential scale as well' date=' +1d6 damage can feasibly look like twice as much harm. (Move along, nothing to see here - yes, this is handwaving, but it does appear that this is how we're supposed to interpret things).[/quote']

 

You're also supposed to handwave the illogic you perceive in the movement rules. If STUN and BOD are exponential, then an attack which strikes ToughMan and inflicts 1 BOD, taking him from 40 to 39, has taken half his BOD. The next hit that gets a BOD past defenses should take the remaining half, dropping him from 39 to 0.

 

My suggestion above was that we have Flight cost 10 points for 20"/Turn. I didn't specifically address other movement powers because they are a variation on the same theme' date=' but for what it's worth I'd probably suggest 20"/Turn Running and 5"/Turn Swimming, though I have no particular axe to grind with the exact figures.[/quote']

 

We'll need exact figures to make the change, won't we? 20" per turn = 12 km per hour. Probably reasonable.

 

Leaping is a bit trickier; you could make a case for saying it should work like Teleport and still be per Phase. You'd either set 2"/Phase or 8"/Turn as the base Leap speed (depending on whether you want leaping to be like teleportation or running)' date=' and then every +5 STR doubles it.[/quote']

 

So +5 STR gets me +1d6 damage, + another 2d6 damage from movement? Sounds like STR is even more valuable. Since we base damage on velocity per turn, keeping leaping per phase seems to create a disconnect. If 4 SPD can leap 15" per phase and 6 SPD can leap 10"/phase, shouldn't they do the same damage? Will they, under your model?

 

I'm not sure this would be a particularly common complaint' date=' given that the overall effect is almost always to make the movement cheaper than the current case.[/quote']

 

It's cheaper if you have a 3 SPD or less. The 6 PD guy pays a lot more to maintain his movement rate. And the reason for the complaint is that there is far less differentiation between character movement speeds. The logarithmic analysis creates a bit wider divergence, but if you spend 40 points on extra running, there will be a lot of velocities missing between 40 points and 41 points.

 

Knockback is easy' date=' though - just take the knockback inches from a normal roll, and backreference the Range Modifier table to see how far back they go.[/quote']

 

Want to add any more charts we need to look up instead of simple math in combat? What about a Stunned chart instead of comparing damage after defense to CON? It's added complexities like this that lead me to question whether the benefits are worth the drawbacks.

 

Arguably. Acceleration/deceleration is no problem (you can currently accelerate your full combat movement in a single phase' date=' and I see no reason not to keep that as a default). Turn modes perhaps get out of hand if they are still based on a linear fraction of total movement, but a simple replacement would be that your turn mode is 2 + 1 per doubling.[/quote']

 

That makes movement even more combat-efficient since I can turn much more often. Is your goal to encourage more speedsters?

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Ummm...movement is used to MOVE. Adding to damage is incidental' date=' not the "use" of the ability.[/quote']

For non-movement focussed characters, yes. I might as reasonably argue that STR is used to pick up things; the ability to damage things is incidental, not the "use" of the ability.

 

Speedsters are hardly anti-genre, and Move Throughs are a classic brick trick of the "Superman" clone variety.

 

You're also supposed to handwave the illogic you perceive in the movement rules.

 

Yes, one can certainly do that. I'm not advocating that position in invalid, just that it is not my position.

 

If STUN and BOD are exponential, then an attack which strikes ToughMan and inflicts 1 BOD, taking him from 40 to 39, has taken half his BOD. The next hit that gets a BOD past defenses should take the remaining half, dropping him from 39 to 0.

Yep, movement is by far not the only hole in the system; I just think it's relatively easy to patch.

 

So +5 STR gets me +1d6 damage, + another 2d6 damage from movement? Sounds like STR is even more valuable.

Yes, good point. Guess that shows why I'm not a game designer.

 

It's logically consistent for it to work like this, but I doubt anyone has argued that STR is too expensive recently. Not really sure how to balance that. Perhaps if we considered a leap Move Through to be a basically uncontrolled impact, so that only your mass (and not your STR) counted for damage, it might work, but I dunno - I'm just an ideas man, the details are for better men than I.

 

Since we base damage on velocity per turn, keeping leaping per phase seems to create a disconnect. If 4 SPD can leap 15" per phase and 6 SPD can leap 10"/phase, shouldn't they do the same damage? Will they, under your model?

My reasoning was that Teleport should stay phase based because there's no velocity involved, and a casual glance at Leap suggests that while there is velocity involved, it is not sustained velocity. If someone can run at 10" a Phase and has a SPD of 6, then presumably we're not supposed to assume that they run 10", stop, run 10" in a couple more seconds, stop again, and so on - we're supposed to assume that they run continuously, and the fact that the movement is abstracted is a game convenience...

 

... you know, that strikes me a pretty reasonable reason to stick with the system as written. You could say that combat movement is "run, stop", while noncombat movement is the sustained velocity. Hmm.

 

Anyway, what I was getting at is that it looks like Leaping is a series of discrete leaps similar to teleport. Since your velocity at the end of a leap is zero (you've landed), and since all (combat) leaps take exactly 1 second, your SPD characteristic doesn't seem to affect your absolute leaping velocity (only how many times you can leap per Turn). As with my paragraph above, though, it is feasible to apply that logic to other movement powers.

 

Damn you!

 

Want to add any more charts we need to look up instead of simple math in combat?

The range chart is already there, surely? Lots of players (not including me) prefer charts to simple math anyway; I use quite a few trivial house rules for Champions to make it consistently "roll high is always good", "no subtraction required to work out what you need to hit", and so forth. I didn't mind working out the time to travel intersystem given the G force of your maneuvering thrusters in the old black book Traveller system, but I wouldn't consider myself a typical case.

 

That makes movement even more combat-efficient since I can turn much more often. Is your goal to encourage more speedsters?

Running has no turn mode anyway, and it's only a +1/4 advantage to Flight to remove it. My suggestion was intended to give the feel that "limited Flight as Running" type speedsters have a similar level of control over moving really fast as they do now - but if you don't think that's appropriate, by all means use the normal turn mode rules.

 

I need to give this some more thought. Still don't like Megascale though.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Why not have the character in question just purchase a Hand To Hand Attack (HA) with Only for Move By and/or Move Throughs Limitation?

 

It's a MUCH simpler method to get more combat damage out of movement based manuevers that does NOT require a complete overhaul of the movement, STR, SPD and other various various rules.

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Ah, Hand to Hand Attack...

 

In 4th edition it used to cost 3 points per die, which was way too cheap. In 5th edition, it costs 5 points with an automatic -1/2 limitation, which leads me to wonder why anyone would ever buy it? Just by STR with No Figured Characteristics - same cost, much more applicability. Now if it was No End by default, we'd have something...

 

But yes, you can do it that way.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Ah, Hand to Hand Attack...

 

In 4th edition it used to cost 3 points per die, which was way too cheap. In 5th edition, it costs 5 points with an automatic -1/2 limitation, which leads me to wonder why anyone would ever buy it? Just by STR with No Figured Characteristics - same cost, much more applicability. Now if it was No End by default, we'd have something...

 

But yes, you can do it that way.

 

STR w/no fig may seem equivalent to HA but it's not.

 

HA's with Advantages are handled far differently than STR with Advantages.

[Dynamo]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Range Modifiers.

 

I would assert that they are not the only example (I think damage is, as previously stated), but range modifiers are the least controversial way to rebut this.

OK, I concede Range Modifiers. Didn't think of that one, and there are probably others that I also didn't think of.

 

But I do not concede damage. I'm not talking about the force applied that a given quantity of dice is supposed to represent, but rather the game mechanical effect for a given point cost. 5 points gets you 1d6 points of Stun damage, 0-2 points of Body damage and 0-2" of knockback. Lifting capacity is doubled, but what does that really represent in game mechanical terms? It's an extra 1d6 of damage if you drop it on your enemy's head. We can arbitrarily change the lifting capacity of Strength to a linear, quadratic, or logarithmic function, and the underlying linear mechanic of 5x points for xd6 damage doesn't change.

 

This is a good thing, because it works. Using a linear mechanic to represent an exponential scale makes superheroic strength workable in a (theoretically) balanced combat system. This is part of what makes Hero the best system on the market for what it was Originally Intended: Superheroics. This was my point to begin.

 

Lessee... why did I bother to make the point in the first place... Oh yeah! I remember!

 

IMO, the rated lifting capacity for Strength (and by extension the force applied by an Energy Blast) has approximately the same utility as Non-Combat Movement for the same price, doubling an extrinsic value for 5 points. Movement and Strength also have a linear value expressed as a concrete game-mechanical effect that can be achieved in a combat situation, but the exponential value really has no effect on in-combat game mechanics. Iron Man can rip a vault door off it's reinforced hinges in one frame and be mocked by Dr Doom in the next for hitting like a girl.

 

So when Gazza mentioned Non-Combat Energy Blasts and Non-Combat Senses, it made more than a little sense to me. What feats should a given Power be able to achieve in a situation not governed by combat-balance linearity? I don't know yet, but the question intrigues me.

 

To use Non-Combat Movement, a character must endure 1/2 DCV and 0 OCV. What penalties should a character take to get a non-linear effect from a given power? I don't know yet, but the question intrigues me.

 

So what of it? What do you think could be done with the concepts of Non-Combat Damage (NCD), Non-Combat Perception (NCP), or more generally Non-Combat Effects (NCE)?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

...

 

To use Non-Combat Movement, a character must endure 1/2 DCV and 0 OCV. What penalties should a character take to get a non-linear effect from a given power? I don't know yet, but the question intrigues me.

 

So what of it? What do you think could be done with the concepts of Non-Combat Damage (NCD), Non-Combat Perception (NCP), or more generally Non-Combat Effects (NCE)?

 

Well, NCP is pretty straightforward since extra time gives already gives a flat/linear bonus (with the noted exception of range mods). For NCE in general I don't see any option that doesn't cross over into either the Power Skill or Haymaker realm.

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

But I do not concede damage. I'm not talking about the force applied that a given quantity of dice is supposed to represent, but rather the game mechanical effect for a given point cost. 5 points gets you 1d6 points of Stun damage, 0-2 points of Body damage and 0-2" of knockback. Lifting capacity is doubled, but what does that really represent in game mechanical terms? It's an extra 1d6 of damage if you drop it on your enemy's head. We can arbitrarily change the lifting capacity of Strength to a linear, quadratic, or logarithmic function, and the underlying linear mechanic of 5x points for xd6 damage doesn't change.

(rest snipped)

 

You raise an excellent point. I hadn't thought of it like that before, but looking at lifting capacity as the equivalent of non-combat movement (sort of) does make a certain amount of sense.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

(rest snipped)

 

You raise an excellent point. I hadn't thought of it like that before, but looking at lifting capacity as the equivalent of non-combat movement (sort of) does make a certain amount of sense.

 

The Ultimate Brick has a more realistic throwing/leaping table that allows for distances between STR/5 and a megascale-throw. I bet that the upcoming Ultimate Energy Projector will have something similar as well.

[GAZZA]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

STR w/no fig may seem equivalent to HA but it's not.

 

HA's with Advantages are handled far differently than STR with Advantages.

Quoting from FRED pp 184:

(in essence, HA is just a Limited form of STR).

 

Of course you are correct (you get advantages for free on STR, in effect, while using HA), but on the other hand it doesn't add to HKAs the way STR would, nor do you get the Leaping ability... I'm not sure that HA at 5 points per die costing END is really worth listing as a separate power.

 

In a 12 DC game, if you want an 8d6 Armour Piercing physical attack, buying 30 points of STR "No Figured Characteristics" and then Armour Piercing for 40 STR costs 40 points. Buying 10 points of STR and 4d6 AP HA also costs 40 points. Granted the latter costs only 5 END instead of 6, but that's not really enough to offset the disadvantages of HA compared to STR (IMHO).

 

We could try adding 0 END to that; that makes it cost 60 points for the STR and 50 points for the STR + HA, and that's starting to look a little better.

 

(shrug)

 

I dunno, the whole structure of the power seems weird to me. It's the only case of a power that has a "built in limitation", so effectively it has a unique rules construct all of its own. I'm just not really convinced that HA really deserves that sort of attention, but YMMV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

Speedsters are hardly anti-genre' date=' and Move Throughs are a classic brick trick of the "Superman" clone variety.[/quote']

 

Agreed. But if I can pay 30 points for +6d6 damage (an EB, say) or 10 points for +6d6 damage with a Move buy, +10d6 damage with a move through and get an extra 15" movement to go with it, which seems the better buy?

 

My reasoning was that Teleport should stay phase based because there's no velocity involved

 

But I now cover more distance with teleport at higher SPD. While the velocity issue explains it, it doesn't make it reasonable that a flier with 6 spd pays 30 points and gets 40" flight (10" doubled twice) per turn, but a teleporter paying the same 30 points can move a greater or lesser distance in a turn. Regardless of how you structure the teleport base, if it's per phase, it only equates for 1 SPD choice.

 

and a casual glance at Leap suggests that while there is velocity involved' date=' it is not sustained velocity.[/quote']

 

Leaping has another issue. For most movement powers, needing to accelerate at the start and decelerate at the end makes sense. I accelerate to top flight speed, and decelerate when I'm done. Shouldn't a leap start at top speed and decelerate as I reach the end of my leap? speaking purely logically, of course.

 

If someone can run at 10" a Phase and has a SPD of 6' date=' then presumably we're not supposed to assume that they run 10", stop, run 10" in a couple more seconds, stop again, and so on - we're supposed to assume that they run continuously, and the fact that the movement is abstracted is a game convenience...[/quote']

 

That's the standard, I agree. But if leaping is per phase and running is per turn, we again get this disconnect that leaping costs way less for the same distance if you're high speed. Applying logic, if that Leap all happens in one second, then its velocity should always be based on 12x the leaping speed, shouldn't it? Leaping Move By/Through now becomes a huge attack compared to use of a different mode of movement.

[Warp9]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

This is exactly the dissonance I mean. A game scaled for normal human ability range encounters difficulties when 48ft giants are added.

Most worlds contain a wide range of entities which could make an apparence in the game.

 

Obviously there are big differences between a mouse and an elephant, but IMO a game system should be able to handle these creatures.

 

I'd like to hear a bit more about your perspective on this matter.

 

Are you suggesting that giants have no place in a game scaled for humans? Or are you suggesting that they should have their own scale within the game? Or would you work things in some other way

[Warp9]

Re: Alternatives to Megascale for movement

 

But I do not concede damage. I'm not talking about the force applied that a given quantity of dice is supposed to represent, but rather the game mechanical effect for a given point cost. 5 points gets you 1d6 points of Stun damage, 0-2 points of Body damage and 0-2" of knockback. Lifting capacity is doubled, but what does that really represent in game mechanical terms? It's an extra 1d6 of damage if you drop it on your enemy's head. We can arbitrarily change the lifting capacity of Strength to a linear, quadratic, or logarithmic function, and the underlying linear mechanic of 5x points for xd6 damage doesn't change.

From my perspective the actual "game mechanical terms" and their specific relationships to each other are unimportant. They are only abstract concepts. It is only what "game mechanical terms" represent in the game world that is important (in other words, the scale between game mechanics values and game world values).

 

If you arbitrarily change the lifting capacity of Strength to a linear funtion, you can keep the 5x points for xd6 damage. But, if you restat all the characters so that they keep the same game world abilities (the Hulk goes from 60+ STR to 10,000+ STR), then the amount of damage dice they do will change anyway.