Balls of Steel

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Why would it need Reduced END if it already has Charges? If anything, it should be a limitation ("Costs END if you haven't spend END on Strength this phase", -1/4 maybe).

 

My two cents:

The Aid construction seems completely legitimate - I don't think there'd be any contention with a character who had that and used it to throw things. The Transform seems legitimate as well.

 

What makes it feel odd is that another character is the one providing the benefit - the throwing character isn't paying anything, and the other character has other uses for the Transform/Aid as well. However, I don't think that there's anything wrong with throwing specifically, I think it's just the normal situation that support characters can be very powerful.

 

I think it's worth keeping an eye on, in the same way a character with a bunch of Usable Simultaneously powers is worth keeping an eye on, and a whole team like that could be massively powerful. But it's not inherently wrong.

 

Quite right about the charges, although the '8 recoverable charges' shouldn't be in the bit about 'throwing objects of opportunity'. Same cost.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Sean' date=' your figuring of the ability to throw objects of opportunity that STR gives for free neglects AOE possibilities...[/quote']

 

Do you know I looked in 6e and I can not find what happens if you throw a big object. It may be there but I can't find it.

[Sidetrack]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

At the very least I'd make Cojones del Aceros pay for the access to his signature item.

 

Perk: Access to Balls (5pts) based on: Major Transform 1d6+1 (standard effect: 4 points), 16 Charges (-0); Conditional Power (Only at Ball Depot) (-1 1/2)

 

akin to Fringe Benefit: Improved Equipment Availability Military equipment

 

That would give CdA a renewable supply of Balls of Steel, with which he could do whatever he wanted. In gameplay though it'd never be quite as handy as a blast, because of course he didn't pay for a blast. They could be misplaced, awkward to tote around, slippery with machine oil, take extra time to dig out of the sack, taken by CdA groupies, fumbled, spilled, sold for scrap by Crack Wizard, etc... but always more fun than a sack full of doorknobs. Then there's the sack itself, it could be snagged, ripped, burned by his nemesis Emasculator's AOE fire attack (Scorching Tirade), dropped, left with the weapons check girl "Sorry CdA, Blazing Steel conjures his sword out thin air as a Focued HKA, he paid for that you know. Just be a sweetie and check those steel baseballs with Tiffany at the front desk. Safety first! Besides there are a lot of corrosive chemicals inside, they can be very dangerous to non-Foci"

 

Also there might be strikes, materials shortages, overseas outsourcing that would affect the perk at times... "Sorry CdA, our overseas supplier switched to ceramic without our consent. I got things straightened out but we've got a container load of these things. Couldn't you use *some* of them? Look, they've still got your logo stamped on 'em. No? What can I say, the ship's engines that use these bearings changed specs. Everything's ceramic theses days, son. The factory had to re-tool, but you're my man CdA, you know I can get you something comparable. I still have plenty of those 3 BODY jobbers around here somewhere, that sack would hold at least 20 of those. The Batman loves those things. Well OK, I see... maybe Lenny down at Ball Emporium has a few, I'll make some calls."

 

I'd never allow it to be as advantageous as someone who paid for a Blast, even Blast with a focus limitation with which he could define his own accessibility. I assume that someone who has paid for their power has already expended the resources to overcome a lot of these incidentals. Thus they get to use their power according to the standard rules for powers. Call it Opportunity Cost.

 

**long story short: Sure, find a cheap way to supply 'Objects of Opportunity', but balance that against 'paid for' Blasts.

[JaredThaler]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Well, if we but this as if he just always has a supply of ammo, then we should build it as close to what it would be if he went and grabbed random objects, right? That means it's not 16 charges, but 16 clips, since otherwise he would have to go pick up each object he wanted to throw from the environment.

 

60 base points: Blast

OIF (Sack of balls) -1/2

Restrainable -1/2

range Limited by Strength -1/4

1 charge, 16 clips, Recoverable -1/4

Costs Endurance -1/2

Unified Power -1/4 (after all, draining his strength drains this as well.)

 

that's 18 points.

 

Not a whole lot to pay for a guaranteed supply of perfect ammo everywhere you go.

 

ETA: If we want to reduce the "Costs Endurance" to 1/4 to represent that it only costs Endurance if he hasn't used his strength this round, that works too, then it costs him 20 points. Still, not bad for a strength trick. And if this was in a multipower of *other* strength tricks, then it's even cheaper. Also, he may want to change it from 16 clips of one charge to 8 clips of 2 charges (Same Price) so he can pull two balls at a time and multi attack.

[Tasha]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

in 6e I would stat it out this way

 

20pt Steel Ball Throw: Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); OAF (-1), 8 Charges (-1/2), Costs Endurance (-1/2) 6 end

 

I choose OAF because even if you couldn't grab all of the balls, the ball in hand IS Grab-able by someone fast enough. Also I doubt that one could use the power while restrained which all fits OAF quite well. I choose non recoverable because I doubt that finding the balls would be possible, also I doubt that if the ball was found after a throw it would be good enough shape to be accurately thrown. BTW this could be an easy way to make an Archer variant. Just add a multipower with trick balls that activate on impact. Could be a nice power set for a pocket brick or a Telekinetic (whether magnetic based or not).

 

IMHO the best way to write up a power is to find the simplest way and to use that. Any other way just causes confusion and makes the GM's job harder when they are trying to figure out whether your character is overpowered or not.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Do you know I looked in 6e and I can not find what happens if you throw a big object. It may be there but I can't find it.

6e2 82 last paragraph under "modifiers for throw" and 6e2 174 under "size/ shape"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

6e2 82 last paragraph under "modifiers for throw" and 6e2 174 under "size/ shape"

 

Much obliged: I was foolishly looking in the combat section

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

So, to Utech's point -yes, Strength allows you to use an AoE at no damage reduction (meaning you can potentially massively exceed effective DC caps, if you consider AoE to contribute to DC).

 

Looking at STR, here's a brief list of what it does (I should probably make this another post really...)

 

1. HtH damage at 1d6 per 5 points

2. Constant effect on the application of force (holding things up or enemies down)

3. Limited (but significant) range, often at a OCV penalty with objects of opportunity

4. AoE with objects of opportunity in HtH or at range, again at an OCV penalty but then again attacking DCV 3...

5. Bracing against KB

6. Effective against TK

7. Not restrainable (except through superior STR/technique)

 

Anything else?

 

Compare that to a Blast attack -

 

1. Damage (1d6 per 5 points) at range

2. Er...

[Kristopher]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Refresh my memory... an object can't do more BODY when swung/thrown/whatever than its own DEF + BODY?

[JaredThaler]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Looking at STR...

 

1. HtH damage at 1d6 per 5 points

...

7. Not restrainable (except through superior STR/technique)

 

Compare that to a Blast attack -

 

1. Damage (1d6 per 5 points) at range

2. Er...

 

I would make that:

 

Str

7. Restrainable (although STR can also be used to break restraint)

 

vs

 

Blast

2. Not Restrainable

 

Since a grab can effectively prevent you from using your strength, for a turn (unless you have enough casual strength to break the grab) while it can't prevent you from using your energy blast (though it may limit your targets.)

[JaredThaler]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Refresh my memory... an object can't do more BODY when swung/thrown/whatever than its own DEF + BODY?

 

Under 4th and 5th ed, as well as under the 6th ed basic rules.

 

Steve Long said that there were some other rules somewhere about using items as weapons that made some changes to this, but I haven't seen them yet.

[Kristopher]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

OK, so how do we explain bullets? Does the bullet (just the bullet) from a sniper rifle really have a combined BODY and DEF of 15?

[torchwolf]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Looking at STR, here's a brief list of what it does (I should probably make this another post really...)

 

1. HtH damage at 1d6 per 5 points

2. Constant effect on the application of force (holding things up or enemies down)

3. Limited (but significant) range, often at a OCV penalty with objects of opportunity

4. AoE with objects of opportunity in HtH or at range, again at an OCV penalty but then again attacking DCV 3...

5. Bracing against KB

6. Effective against TK

7. Not restrainable (except through superior STR/technique)

 

Anything else?

 

Compare that to a Blast attack -

 

1. Damage (1d6 per 5 points) at range

2. Er...

 

I would make that:

 

Str

7. Restrainable (although STR can also be used to break restraint)

 

vs

 

Blast

2. Not Restrainable

 

Since a grab can effectively prevent you from using your strength, for a turn (unless you have enough casual strength to break the grab) while it can't prevent you from using your energy blast (though it may limit your targets.)

Two additional "elses":

 

STR

8. 10 free Active Points (STR 10 being free).

 

Also, I had a look in the Ultimate Brick - p37 for instance brings up using Dispel to use the environment for eaxmple to tear down a tapestry in order to smother a fire. The example uses a Heroic-level brick but it brings up the issue that at least the 5ER rules made it a GM call as to the limits of using STR to use other Powers (and this also gives 10 bonus Active Points for STR as in #8 above):

 

STR

9. Temporarily use other Powers of Active Points up to STR Active Points (in Heroic campaigns - Superheroic campaigns would presumably require a Power: Brick Tricks Roll and/or buying the ability to use it repeatedly).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

OK' date=' so how do we explain bullets? Does the bullet (just the bullet) from a sniper rifle [i']really[/i] have a combined BODY and DEF of 15?

 

I think the rule applies to improvised objects: bullets (and other weapons) are designed to deliver their rated damage, often using their own destruction as part of the damage delivering process.

 

Least that's what I tell myself.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Refresh my memory... an object can't do more BODY when swung/thrown/whatever than its own DEF + BODY?

 

6E: An object cannot do more Damage Classes (usually dice of normal damage) than it's DEF + BODY. So with an exceptionally lucky roll, it could do 2 x (DEF + BODY) in BODY Damage. (6E2, 173)

[casualplayer]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

I wouldn't let a player buy the power described in the way that it is constructed. An Adjustment Power affecting Blast should not affect this power except for in the most unlikely of special effects, however Adjustment Powers affecting STR should affect this power. It isn't a Blast; it's a thrown object. So what we have here is some limited uses of STR Ranged through foci, if the character wants to have the power routinely and often available, or just a Power Stunt type of thing if it is very seldom used.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

So, to Utech's point -yes, Strength allows you to use an AoE at no damage reduction (meaning you can potentially massively exceed effective DC caps, if you consider AoE to contribute to DC).

 

Looking at STR, here's a brief list of what it does (I should probably make this another post really...)

 

1. HtH damage at 1d6 per 5 points

2. Constant effect on the application of force (holding things up or enemies down)

3. Limited (but significant) range, often at a OCV penalty with objects of opportunity

 

This depends on how generous the GM is feeling. Personally, I believe that the penalties for throwing larger objects should increase. I also note that the rules technically require a phase to grab and heft the object and a second phase to aim and throw it. Grab allows a toss in a random direction, but not an attack with OCV. This also fits the source material where, quite often, the object is attacked and destroyed before it can be thrown. I also don't find lots of objects capable of inflicting 12d6 damage conveniently lying around at every battle.

 

4. AoE with objects of opportunity in HtH or at range' date=' again at an OCV penalty but then again attacking DCV 3...[/quote']

 

I prefer the "bonus OCV for large objects" rule, coupled with penalties to the Brick for the size of the object and its unweildiness. The fact that, once you pick it up, you likely have blocked much of your field of vision, should have some perception penalties as well.

 

5. Bracing against KB

 

WIth DCV halved, but still true.

 

6. Effective against TK

7. Not restrainable (except through superior STR/technique)

Compare that to a Blast attack -

 

1. Damage (1d6 per 5 points) at range

2. Er...

 

Trade damage for OCV by Spreading

Trade damage for multiple targets by Spreading

Limited SFX based benefits .

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

This depends on how generous the GM is feeling. Personally' date=' I believe that the penalties for throwing larger objects should increase. I also note that the rules technically require a phase to grab and heft the object and a second phase to aim and throw it. Grab allows a toss in a random direction, but not an attack with OCV. This also fits the source material where, quite often, the object is attacked and destroyed before it can be thrown. I also don't find lots of objects capable of inflicting 12d6 damage conveniently lying around at every battle.[/quote']

 

6.2.80 says that an unresisting object that is 'in no way difficult to grasp' and that you can lift with your casual strength can be grabbed and thrown as part of a single attack action, and without needing to roll to grab it first (well not needing to make a Grab maneouvre first).

 

Given the rubber physics of superhero games, cars are not going to be difficult to grasp, and a 60 STR character can lift many cars with casual strength, and they easily come to more than 12 (PD+BODY). Cars are pretty common in most city scenes (or manhole covers), or huge rolls of steel cable down at the docks, or boulders out in the wilderness. Or trees: trees are good. In buildings you might struggle more - but then in buildings the advantage of having a ranged attack is substantially reduced anyway, and you can probably do at least 9d6 throwing a photocopier.

 

After the first couple of phases there is often enough rubble lying around to turn into a handy missile

 

Point is that you, as GM, can certainly make things more difficult for high STR characters, but the actual rules seem to allow for a great deal of utility from strength.

 

 

 

 

 

I prefer the "bonus OCV for large objects" rule' date=' coupled with penalties to the Brick for the size of the object and its unweildiness. The fact that, once you pick it up, you likely have blocked much of your field of vision, should have some perception penalties as well.[/quote']

 

Per penalties? Even I'm not that stingy

 

If you do use OCV bonuses, a car is about 4 times the size of a human so would attract +4 OCV. That cancels out any OCV penalty for a thrown car (and if you use a car to swat someone with there are no range penalties so you have an excellent chance of hitting your target.

 

 

 

 

 

Trade damage for OCV by Spreading

Trade damage for multiple targets by Spreading

Limited SFX based benefits .

 

Well, yes, you can spread a Blast to increase OCV or number of targets BUT that reduces damage. If you pick up a large object that increases OCV (or makes it AoE) and doesn't reduce damage.

 

I'm still thinking that STR has a massive utility advantage over Blast. Blast only really comes into its own where the battlefield conditions are such that there are wide open spaces, no cover and nothing to throw. Desert warfare, that sort of thing, or if the Blaster has a significantly greater move, and the space to use it.

 

I've always thought that the most deadly archetype is the 'fast brick'.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

6.2.80 says that an unresisting object that is 'in no way difficult to grasp' and that you can lift with your casual strength can be grabbed and thrown as part of a single attack action, and without needing to roll to grab it first (well not needing to make a Grab maneouvre first).

 

Given the rubber physics of superhero games, cars are not going to be difficult to grasp, and a 60 STR character can lift many cars with casual strength, and they easily come to more than 12 (PD+BODY). Cars are pretty common in most city scenes (or manhole covers), or huge rolls of steel cable down at the docks, or boulders out in the wilderness. Or trees: trees are good. In buildings you might struggle more - but then in buildings the advantage of having a ranged attack is substantially reduced anyway, and you can probably do at least 9d6 throwing a photocopier.

 

A lot of this comes down to interpretation of what is "in no way difficult to grasp". If you just grab a car by its bumper, the bumper probably falls off. You need to grasp it somewhere you can get a solid grip on a part that won't just pull away. Requiring some time for such a grip does not seem unreasonable. I would look a bit sideways at a player who first argues that "realisticallyu" he should have no trouble getting steel throwing spheres, so he should get them at no point cost, then arguing comic bbook rubber physics. Did you want realism or comic book conventions to govern? You can't have both.

 

Trees - you need to uproot them, so a separate attack.

 

After the first couple of phases there is often enough rubble lying around to turn into a handy missile

 

Shouldn't there also be enough rubble that I can get a free DCV bonus and/or Barrier by standing in the midst of it so your thrown rubble misses me?

 

If you do use OCV bonuses' date=' a car is about 4 times the size of a human so would attract +4 OCV. That cancels out any OCV penalty for a thrown car (and if you use a car to swat someone with there are no range penalties so you have an excellent chance of hitting your target.[/quote']

 

When the blaster shoots the gas tank, holding a car may seem less of a great idea.

 

Well' date=' yes, you can spread a Blast to increase OCV or number of targets BUT that reduces damage. If you pick up a large object that increases OCV (or makes it AoE) and doesn't reduce damage.[/quote']

 

Again assuming suiotable large objects are always available. The GM is ultimately makling that call, and this contributes markedly to this aspect of the value of strength. If the players want Bricks to always have handy items to throw, then they shouldn't gripe about the brick being overly effective as a consequence. Convenient rubble that's at your feet and suitable for throwing; everything has appropriate defenses and BOD to allow you to use full STR damage, etc. seems like making it pretty easy for the Brick to be overpowered. So reduce that power level.

 

I'm still thinking that STR has a massive utility advantage over Blast. Blast only really comes into its own where the battlefield conditions are such that there are wide open spaces' date=' no cover and nothing to throw.[/quote']

 

If the Brick can use cover to avoid the Blaster, can't everyone else use cover to avoid objects thrown by the Brick? If I stand in an alleyway, should that not make it harder for the Brick to throw a car at me, since either end clipping the building will prevent the car's flightpath? My Blast is much narrower and fits fine through such spaces, of course. A broken window allows me to use a wall to frustrate that large object being readily thrown at me. The Brick has chosen to use a real object, so he should be subject to the restrictions imposed by that real object. That's what you get for free.

[Utech]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

I think this thread has gotten quite a bit off track. Can we agree that since basic game mechanics allow all characters to grab and throw something nearby as a weapon, the steel balls in the OP -- in fairness -- ought to be costed differently from a Blast that represents something that the basic game mechanics do not give for free?

If no, why not?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

A lot of this comes down to interpretation of what is "in no way difficult to grasp". If you just grab a car by its bumper' date=' the bumper probably falls off. You need to grasp it somewhere you can get a solid grip on a part that won't just pull away. Requiring some time for such a grip does not seem unreasonable. I would look a bit sideways at a player who first argues that "realisticallyu" he should have no trouble getting steel throwing spheres, so he should get them at no point cost, then arguing comic bbook rubber physics. Did you want realism or comic book conventions to govern? You can't have both.[/quote']

 

You can so long as they are not incompatible within the genre I daresay most supers don't grab cars be the bumper and try to lift more than once. The probably grab the chassis or engine block (casual STR to punch through the bonnet) and lift that. Leverage is a problem, if you want 'realism' unless they have flight (does that sentence make any sense? ) and can brace without anything to brace against - but that tends to get handwaved in superhero games - otherwise anything really large would be impossible to pick up. My take is that a car is an unresisting inanimate object that is not a particularly awkward shape - and so can be grabbed and thrown as a single attack.

 

Trees - you need to uproot them' date=' so a separate attack.[/quote']

 

Maybe - maybe not - if you can snap the trunk with casual STR you can free it to use - or of you just get KB'd into it and it broke all on its own - point is that a creative player can usually find something to throw in most environments.

 

 

 

Shouldn't there also be enough rubble that I can get a free DCV bonus and/or Barrier by standing in the midst of it so your thrown rubble misses me?

 

Yes, it is called 'cover', and if the blaster wants to hide behind it he can.

 

 

 

When the blaster shoots the gas tank' date=' holding a car may seem less of a great idea.[/quote']

 

Creative combats should always be encouraged.

 

 

 

Again assuming suiotable large objects are always available. The GM is ultimately makling that call' date=' and this contributes markedly to this aspect of the value of strength. If the players want Bricks to always have handy items to throw, then they shouldn't gripe about the brick being overly effective as a consequence. Convenient rubble that's at your feet and suitable for throwing; everything has appropriate defenses and BOD to allow you to use full STR damage, etc. seems like making it pretty easy for the Brick to be overpowered. So reduce that power level.[/quote']

 

Hardly fair on the GM - the problem is that the rules allow all this stuff for STR at a cost of 1CP/1STR - sure the GM can mitigate the bonuses STR gives - but that is simply penalising the player who wants to play the character to full potential. If this is an issue - and I think it is - it should be fixed in the rules.

 

 

 

If the Brick can use cover to avoid the Blaster' date=' can't everyone else use cover to avoid objects thrown by the Brick? If I stand in an alleyway, should that not make it harder for the Brick to throw a car at me, since either end clipping the building will prevent the car's flightpath? My Blast is much narrower and fits fine through such spaces, of course. A broken window allows me to use a wall to frustrate that large object being readily thrown at me. The Brick has chosen to use a real object, so he should be subject to the restrictions imposed by that real object. That's what you get for free.[/quote']

 

Absolutely - creative combat solutions should always be encouraged. I don't think most games make enough use of cover.. Of course even if you can not throw a car down the alleyway you can do 12d6 with a manhole cover, which is balanced and aerodynamic - again, subject to availability - and whilst others can use cover to avoid Brick thrown objects the brick does not care - because he has the option of closing to melee range and negating most cover opportunities, whereas the blaster's only advantage is maintaining distance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

I think this thread has gotten quite a bit off track. Can we agree that since basic game mechanics allow all characters to grab and throw something nearby as a weapon, the steel balls in the OP -- in fairness -- ought to be costed differently from a Blast that represents something that the basic game mechanics do not give for free?

If no, why not?

 

You are right I do seem to encourage sidetracks...

 

You put your finger on the problem here - if you can throw objects of opportunity , possibly at an OCV penalty for the points you have already spent, what should the cost be to have a more reliable and accurate source of ammo? There is also the interesting point about adjusting blast that casualplayer makes.

 

I'm not sure there is a clear answer.

 

On one hand you build it as an entirely separate power, ignoring the partial utility you already have, on the other you simply make up the cost of the utility gap, or, on the gripping hand, you decide that items of that sort should be effectively free as part of the general utility of STR.

 

Thorny one.

[Markdoc]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

You are right I do seem to encourage sidetracks...

 

You put your finger on the problem here - if you can throw objects of opportunity , possibly at an OCV penalty for the points you have already spent, what should the cost be to have a more reliable and accurate source of ammo? There is also the interesting point about adjusting blast that casualplayer makes.

 

I'm not sure there is a clear answer.

 

On one hand you build it as an entirely separate power, ignoring the partial utility you already have, on the other you simply make up the cost of the utility gap, or, on the gripping hand, you decide that items of that sort should be effectively free as part of the general utility of STR.

 

Thorny one.

 

 

Hmm. To me the answer seems perfectly straightforward. The issue of "partial utility" is a red herring. Yes, STR already gives you the ability to throw things. An EB gives you the ability to damage things, but that partial utility gives you no price break if you want to buy STR. If the powers really are related, use a framework. If not, buy them straight up. "closing the utility gap" has never - with good reason: a utility gap is not a quantifiable power or skill - been a part of Hero system.

 

That issue disposed of, you have two choices: buy it as seperate power or allow it "free" as part of the general environment. Since the objects as described are highly unusual and have to be specifically produced for the task at hand, they're clearly no more part of the general environment than a bazooka, so "free" is not an option either.

 

That leaves option 1. Buy it as a separate power.

 

Of course, this being Hero, there are multiple ways to do that, as discussed in this thread - using transform to make the objects, using Aid to harden the objects, buying a limited EB - these are all acceptable options to me. They all have pros and cons which serve to differentiate them and balance them off against each other. And there are probably others we haven't thought of yet

 

Nonetheless, to me, this seems one of Sean's simpler and easy to answer questions!

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

Maybe - maybe not - if you can snap the trunk with casual STR you can free it to use - or of you just get KB'd into it and it broke all on its own - point is that a creative player can usually find something to throw in most environments.

 

How much more balanced would this be if we also allowed the Blaster to use a Casual Blast against the object as it sails towards him? Not at all for the Steel Balls, but that's because these are low BOD, high DEF objects. The tree and the car, I suspect, have higher BOD and lower DEF. Would a casual blast damage them, such that they would no longer have the capacity to do 12d6 damage when they impact immediately thereafter? They are large objects, so it would seem more realistic that they can be casually targeted than that they can casuualy be grabbed and thrown. The blast could also do knockback, throwing the object off its trajectory, although knockback from a casual blast is unlikely to be significant, especially when the object is large (and small ones would require more effort to target).

 

Part of the problem is that we argue realism when it suits the Brick, but not when it acts to his detriment.

 

Perhaps, since we are "realistically" allowing the Brick to have conveniently sized debris of combat around to throw, we should also penalize ground movement for all this debris on the battlefield. But that would impede the ability of many bricks to close into melee range, wouldn't it?

 

Absolutely - creative combat solutions should always be encouraged. I don't think most games make enough use of cover.. Of course even if you can not throw a car down the alleyway you can do 12d6 with a manhole cover' date=' which is balanced and aerodynamic - again, subject to availability - and whilst others can use cover to avoid Brick thrown objects the brick does not care - because he has the option of closing to melee range and negating most cover opportunities, whereas the blaster's only advantage is maintaining distance.[/quote']

 

The Brick needs to locate and move to that manhole cover. The close one is probably buried under a pile of combat debris, isn't it? And likely damaged by the blast that created the debris, right? Or does all this realism, again, operate only when it favours the Brick?

 

The simplest solution here - and completely illegal by the book - would be to allow the Brick to buy Range on his STR, suitably limited, to address the throwing balls. The Brick could sell back his 10 base STR, and instead buy Telekinesis, limit it to no range, and have all the same abilities at the same cost, couldn't he? He could then buy off the "no range" limitation with suitable limitations on that buyoff, which would simulate exertion of STR at range through the steel balls. I can't see how this would be a lot different from STR (especially now that figured's have been eliminated), so perhaps the days of "no STR at Range" should come to a close.

 

Maybe the Brick should buy the steel balls as very limited Stretching that doesn't cross the intervening space. How far did you want to throw those balls? Probably too far for this to be a good approach.

 

Of course, either of these approaches leaves the possibility that STR grants too much. But the versatility of STR is clearly enhanced if the GM is more generous in interpreting the Object of Opportunity rules, and reduced if he is less generous.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balls of Steel

 

How much more balanced would this be if we also allowed the Blaster to use a Casual Blast against the object as it sails towards him? Not at all for the Steel Balls' date=' but that's because these are low BOD, high DEF objects. The tree and the car, I suspect, have higher BOD and lower DEF. Would a casual blast damage them, such that they would no longer have the capacity to do 12d6 damage when they impact immediately thereafter? They are large objects, so it would seem more realistic that they can be casually targeted than that they can casuualy be grabbed and thrown. The blast could also do knockback, throwing the object off its trajectory, although knockback from a casual blast is unlikely to be significant, especially when the object is large (and small ones would require more effort to target).[/quote']

 

I'm all for creative use of powers - but I'd treat that as the requirement for blocking a heavy thrown object - you'd have to use your blast (costing the relevant END) and then you get a block attempt: you can not normally block an AoE, but I'd allow that as an exception. Whether or not 'casual blast' was enough I'd have to ponder: I'd suggest that the amount of blast needed would have to be at least equal to the amount of STR required to lift the object - and, of course, being a block, it would take a combat action.

 

So, if Blob throws a car at Cyclops he could not normally block it, because it is too big and too heavy, but I'd allow him to use his Optic Blast as the sfx of a block in that instance. If the DC of the blast he uses x5 is equal to the STR needed to the STR needed to lift the car (i.e 6 to 7 DC) I'd say it works, otherwise it probably just knocks off a few dice of damage.

 

Part of the problem is that we argue realism when it suits the Brick, but not when it acts to his detriment.

 

Perhaps, since we are "realistically" allowing the Brick to have conveniently sized debris of combat around to throw, we should also penalize ground movement for all this debris on the battlefield. But that would impede the ability of many bricks to close into melee range, wouldn't it?

 

Not necessarily - casual STR may well allow you to simple plough through debris - and anyway, not all bricks are earthbound.

 

If I were running it, and debris was an issue, it would almost certainly be in chunks no bigger than a human (so no OCV bonus) and awkward to throw - neither balanced nor aerodynamic - so the chance of hitting will not be great. However, there will be occasional exceptions, but the point is that there will usually be SOMETHING a brick can grab and throw even if it is not an ideal missile.

 

 

 

The Brick needs to locate and move to that manhole cover. The close one is probably buried under a pile of combat debris' date=' isn't it? And likely damaged by the blast that created the debris, right? Or does all this realism, again, operate only when it favours the Brick?[/quote']

 

Given superhero move rates, getting to the next manhole cover is probably not that difficult, and as they tend to be in the middle of the street then debris is probably less of an issue - however, I'm not saying we should make matters favourable to the brick, or any other archetype - I'm saying that we should not bend the game world so that we balance out the cost imbalance - we should actually look at cost/utility. Grabbing and throwing heavy objects is an almost inevitable sight in comics featuring super strong characters. Heroclix actually scatters markers for heavy objects on the game map. I'm saying that Strength is an extremely flexible power with an awful lot of applications.

 

The simplest solution here - and completely illegal by the book - would be to allow the Brick to buy Range on his STR, suitably limited, to address the throwing balls. The Brick could sell back his 10 base STR, and instead buy Telekinesis, limit it to no range, and have all the same abilities at the same cost, couldn't he? He could then buy off the "no range" limitation with suitable limitations on that buyoff, which would simulate exertion of STR at range through the steel balls. I can't see how this would be a lot different from STR (especially now that figured's have been eliminated), so perhaps the days of "no STR at Range" should come to a close.

 

Maybe the Brick should buy the steel balls as very limited Stretching that doesn't cross the intervening space. How far did you want to throw those balls? Probably too far for this to be a good approach.

 

Of course, either of these approaches leaves the possibility that STR grants too much. But the versatility of STR is clearly enhanced if the GM is more generous in interpreting the Object of Opportunity rules, and reduced if he is less generous.

 

You'd probably need to be able to buy 'Range limited by STR' and 'AoE' as naked advantages on STR as some sort of 'Brick Trick' MP. I wouldn't mind that approach - it makes STR more expensive without changing the 1d6/5point thing. Thing is, despite the whole thing about being 'effects based', we've always had a blind spot on STR and work it backwards: if I was strong what would I be able to do? - rather than - 'building' your vision of Strength from a set of tools. I mean how far you can throw a heavy object is as much a function of how fast you can move as how strong you are. I mean a crane is very strong and can lift a lot, but isn't going to be throwing anything very far. The ability to throw heavy objects could easily be divorced from strength. In fact, arguably, the ability to do any kind of damage other than squeezing or rending damage could be divorced from strength.