Free equipment side discussion.

[Vulcan]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Let's not forget, and this builds off of something (I think!) Diamond Spear was saying, and it's this:

 

You can go ahead and nerf down the weapons in SuperHeroic games. Go ahead. I think we've committed this sort of bizarre error, that for the sake of convenience we're going with the assumption that a .50 cal Desert Eagle should always deal 2 1/2d6 (or 2d6+1, whichever) regardless.

 

Those rules are GREAT; they can certainly make the weapons consistent from game to game. But they can also stop making sense in certain genres. One way is to say "the supers take less damage."

 

Another is to "Golden Age" the weapons themselves. Instead of giving the Supers crazy defenses, nerf the guns.

 

Of course, then Thug with a .50 cal. Desert Eagle can't kill a hostage with 8 BODY in one shot without GM fiat.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Of course' date=' then Thug with a .50 cal. Desert Eagle can't kill a hostage with 8 BODY in one shot without GM fiat.[/quote']

 

And for Golden Age, maybe you want that. Technically, you can't do it with a standard round as it is -- you can reduce them to negative BODY, sure, but you can't kill 'em. We can go in circles like this all day long; the question will always come back to this:

 

1) What are you really trying to simulate, and

 

2) What's the easiest, rules compliant way to do what you want?

 

One of the ideas thrown around already was "hey, let's change damage based on who picks it up," which is no more or less confounding than giving all supers a campaign advantage vs. normal weapons, or reducing the general damage of the weapons themselves based on the setting. I'm surprised this was met with such resistance; that says something.

 

This. Is. HERO.

 

Who cares what the book says in regards to a specific build? This is a house rule and will remain a house rule, by everything I can see. I'm simply offering a different kind of solution. Most people in Golden Age comics who get shot are only wounded in the shoulder anyway. Surprising then that everyone is so up in arms over what is, effectively, just a different way of resolving a self-imposed problem.

[Vulcan]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

And for Golden Age, maybe you want that. Technically, you can't do it with a standard round as it is -- you can reduce them to negative BODY, sure, but you can't kill 'em. We can go in circles like this all day long; the question will always come back to this:

 

1) What are you really trying to simulate, and

 

2) What's the easiest, rules compliant way to do what you want?

 

One of the ideas thrown around already was "hey, let's change damage based on who picks it up," which is no more or less confounding than giving all supers a campaign advantage vs. normal weapons, or reducing the general damage of the weapons themselves based on the setting. I'm surprised this was met with such resistance; that says something.

 

This. Is. HERO.

 

Who cares what the book says in regards to a specific build? This is a house rule and will remain a house rule, by everything I can see. I'm simply offering a different kind of solution. Most people in Golden Age comics who get shot are only wounded in the shoulder anyway. Surprising then that everyone is so up in arms over what is, effectively, just a different way of resolving a self-imposed problem.

 

Fair enough.

[director13]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Sounds like it would increase the level of "cinematic" in my games, and decrease my player's natural nesting instincts, both to the good.

 

Well, in four color genre's where that's good, I mean.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Free equipment side discussion.

 

Supers take half damage from Real Weapon because we say so.

 

What about expanding the value of Real Weapon maybe -1 and expanding its description to only half effect versus super?