DEF/BODY of inanimate objects

[Nelijal]

I'm moving this topic from the "What do you want to see?" thread so Steve doesn't have to wade thru it. This is a subject that I've pondered on and I think it deserves some attention.

 

Originally posted by Old Man

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mancer

The issue of weapons hacking through Oak doors, Stone walls, etc is dealt with on pg. 328 of Fred with the "-1/4 Real Weapon" limitation (which most Fantasy Hero weapons should have by default)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The "Real Weapon" limitation is a useless piece of handwaving that says nothing more than "it is up to the GM to determine how this should work," which is how things were in 4th ed., or for that matter, Basic D&D. It does nothing to help the GM with an argumentative player who has a different idea of just how many hacks it takes to get through an oaken door in "real life".

The DEF/BODY of common materials seems to me also to be low compared to the damage HTH weapons do. I don't have an answer but my brain cell just had a thought: What if the ability to damage an inanimate object were based on the relative DEFs (and perhaps BODYs) of the weapon and target.

 

In most cases (sword vs stone wall, for example) the rules take care of themselves since the sword's damage will never get thru the wall's DEF, but what about the gray areas that aren't so obvious (sword vs oak door)? Should the DEFs be compared, or should we simply up the DEF of common materials like wood?

 

I'm spitballing here, so if it sounds like I haven't thought this all the way thru, you're right. I'm posting this to get a discussion going. Two heads are better than one, so a few more can't hurt, as long as too many cooks don't spoil the broth. . .

[Markdoc]

Oldguy has a point, but I have found no real alternative to handwaving it.

 

A 2d6 great axe could be expected to go through an oaken door right smartish, but a 2d6 sword will likely embed itself in the door and then have to be *carefully* wiggled free (a process likely to take several turns) or it'll go "kwa-PEENG" and you'll be left holding the stump of a sword.

 

Swords are fragile, remember!

 

A 2d6 RKA morning star will take ages to batter down the door, if it does anything more than scar the surface up, while imagine trying to destroy a door with a 2d6 RKA pike (poke, poke, poke, poke .... repeat 60 times).

 

The GM has to use common sense.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Greenstar]

It's still a handwave, but maybe you could rule on the type of damage needed - for example, to chop down a door, you need cutting damage. The DEF/BODY of the door is normal against this damage. Ditto for, say, fire (it's wood, after all). For "inappropriate" damage types apply a multiplier to the BODY of the item. Say, 5x BODY if you are going at it with a sword, and even 20X if a spear.

[Chris Goodwin]

I believe that's part of the Real Weapon Limitation. A sword can't cut through an oak door, and a spiky macey clubby thing can't cut rope.

[Gary]

Def and body of inanimate objects are too low. Imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime (21-23 str) with a great axe. He'll do 4d6 hka with a haymaker without pushing. That means vs the side armor of a M-1 Abrams tank (def 16), he'll do body about 24% of the time. It'll take him about 2 minutes to demolish the tank.

[Vondy]

Too bad his sword was built with the real weapon limitation.

 

[Gary]

Originally posted by D-Man

Too bad his sword was built with the real weapon limitation.

 

 

You're right. He'd actually have to fall on the tank to destroy it, while wearing heavy kevlar.

 

Assuming he has 18 body, 5 pd, 11 def kevlar, he'll do the full 30d6 terminal velocity damage to the tank vs its 16 pd. 14 body through defenses on average.

[Monolith]

I think the Real Weapon limitation should indicate that the DEF of the weapon cannot do damage to something which has a greater DEF value. So if you state that a broadsword has 4 DEF it should not be able to do BODY damage to an inanimate object of greater than 4 DEF. So if you hit a 5 DEF Oak door (5 being the value listed in FREd for heavy wood) with a broadsword the sword should bounce.

[Nelijal]

That's right along the same lines I was thinking, Monolith. I would suggest that, instead of an all-or-nothing cutoff where the DEF values cross, a weapon could do minimal damage to objects with DEF equal to some multiple of the weapon's DEF, say 1/2 damage for targets up to 2x the weapon's DEF?

 

Also, part of the problem with getting thru the oak door is that a sword is awkward in that situation, whereas an axe isn't. A better comparison would be trying to cut down a tree with either a sword or an axe. The axe will obviously do better.

 

There's no getting around the GM having to adjudicate these situations--after all, that's his job. For consistency's sake, though, it would be nice to have some guidelines.

 

My brain cell is starting to hurt.

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by D-Man

Too bad his sword was built with the real weapon limitation.

 

 

Thats one of the things I don't like about the real weapon lim, it adds too much to the GM side of the equation. Needs to be cleaned, oiled, should not be dropped from 20,000 feet I can buy for real weapon but you can't hurt that even though you can easily damage it by the rules is a bit too far for me, that is the GM's job to determine, putting this into the real weapon lim goes to far for me and seems to excuse the GM from being practical. If it is obvious to the players and the GM that the situation is not right despite the rules, then you can't do it, if it is not so cut and dried to both the gM and players then it deservs at least a little discussion, I'd hate to see the GM duck out of defending a "you can't do that, end of argument" based solely on the real weapon lim.

 

I think real weapon has actually caused a problem because def typically is too low compared to weapons, but in most discussions surrounding raising def the new def is compared to things such as "well then the Abrams could survive a fall from orbit" which is silly any GM should rule that the tank is unservicable and the crew is jelly, yet from the other side "weapons can cut right through a tank" Real weapon is pulled out as a defense of the low defenses.

 

I don't know the solution and am probably off on a tangent but I don't like "real weapon" as the reasoning behind preventing damage SFX should be all that is required for that.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Nelijal

That's right along the same lines I was thinking, Monolith. I would suggest that, instead of an all-or-nothing cutoff where the DEF values cross, a weapon could do minimal damage to objects with DEF equal to some multiple of the weapon's DEF, say 1/2 damage for targets up to 2x the weapon's DEF?

The problem with using 2x or 1.5x is that you get into the "unreasonable effect" range fairly quickly. If you assume a broadsword has 4 DEF, then you are saying it can possibly cut into 6-8 DEF items.

5 DEF is considered Very Heavy Wood or Bricks.

6 DEF is considered Concrete and Heavy Bar Metal.

7 DEF is considered Reinforced Bricks or Plate Armor.

8 DEF is considered Casting Metal or Reinforced Concrete.

 

So can a broadsword bite into Very Heavy Wood or Bricks? I would think you could use a sword to chip away at those substances with a broad sword. Do I think a broadsword would be useful for Concrete or Heavy Bar Metal? No, not at all.

 

A good rule could be that the weapons can do damage to inanimate items up to the weapon's own DEF value, but can only do 1 point of damage to substances 1 DEF value higher, and no damage to substances greater than that. So a 4 DEF broadsword can attack 4 DEF items, but can only do 1 point of damge to 5 DEF items and cannot hurt 6+ DEF items.

 

As far as the reason an axe works better than a sword would be because it has a higher DEF value.

 

Daggers: 1-2 DEF

Spears: 2-3 DEF

Standard Swords: 3-4 DEF

Two-handed/Great Swords: 4-5 DEF

Polearms: 5-6 DEF

Axes/Maces: 6-7 DEF

 

These are just estimates, but probably pretty close to what I would do if I played a fantasy game.

[Greenstar]

Why do polearms have so much more DEF than spears? I can see a bit more, but more than double? Either spears are too low, or polearms are too high.

 

Anyone else notice that it's ridiculously easy to break a foe's weapon? A broadsword is usually 4 DEF, 4 BODY. Someone with a greatsword doing no extra STR damage will almost destroy one in a single blow. Somehow, I don't think they were that fragile.

 

Also, isn't heavy plate listed as rPD=8? That's the same DEF as a bank vault? Huh?

 

Methinks the DEF and BODY values *are* seriously off.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Greenstar

Why do polearms have so much more DEF than spears? I can see a bit more, but more than double? Either spears are too low, or polearms are too high.

After watching Conquest, I gave them a higher value because many polearms had heavily constructed axe-like heads at the ends. While it is true that both shafts are made of wood, a spear has a rather simple head whereas a polearm has a heavy and well-constructed head. Thus a greater DEF value.

 

Anyone else notice that it's ridiculously easy to break a foe's weapon? A broadsword is usually 4 DEF, 4 BODY. Someone with a greatsword doing no extra STR damage will almost destroy one in a single blow. Somehow, I don't think they were that fragile.

I have no idea how fragile those weapons were, but when you consider that few human ever had a 20 STR in real life, you can see that few would get lots of extra damage with those weapons in the real world.

 

Also, isn't heavy plate listed as rPD=8? That's the same DEF as a bank vault? Huh?

FREd lists a vault door as having 16 DEF on page 304.

 

Methinks the DEF and BODY values *are* seriously off.

DEF and BODY of weapons, or DEF and BODY of other items?

 

The problem is the genre itself. In one book Conan breaks chains and knocks over oak doors with his bare hands. In another book he is chained for month and is forced to eat rats to stay alive. Which of those stories should the examples in FREd try to emulate?

[Greenstar]

The problem is the genre itself. In one book Conan breaks chains and knocks over oak doors with his bare hands. In another book he is chained for month and is forced to eat rats to stay alive. Which of those stories should the examples in FREd try to emulate?

 

Good point. My preference would be for realism, but that's just me. So in my world, he eats rat

 

For the FH campaighn I'm working on, I may tweak the DEF and BODY of things a bit with some house rules to make 'em a bit more durable.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Greenstar

Methinks the DEF and BODY values *are* seriously off.

I think one problem is that HERO assumes DEF to be a function of material type only, and BODY to be a function of how much of that material is in an object. In reality, DEF is also affected by the amount of material present.

 

For example, a sword or .45ACP can do a lot of damage to a steel car body (they still exist, don't they?), but the same weapons used against a battleship turret will do nothing more than chip the paint (even assuming the two were made of the same grade of steel).

 

I think this is somewhat taken into account in the rules, it's just that those of us running Heroic level games find flaws with the values given in the book. I don't fault Steve and the gang; I've toyed with some numbers before, looking for a way to scale game attributes so that a single standard could be applied to everything: humans to elephants, Faberge egg to aircraft carrier. It can be done, but the results look like the Fractionary Speed Chart, and who wants to play that?

 

Probably the best to hope for is to come up with a set of values that work within the frame of a given game. If you can come up with something that works for swords, axes, oak doors, and castle walls, but not with artillery and battleships, run with it (assuming you're running heroic fantasy). And that's why I started this thread, to get you guys to give me some good ideas for my game.

[Mancer]

Originally posted by Gary

Def and body of inanimate objects are too low. Imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime (21-23 str) with a great axe. He'll do 4d6 hka with a haymaker without pushing.

 

Point taken, but Arnold in his prime wouldn't have a 23 Str -- that's a 1320 lb. dead lift. I'd place him in the 16-20 range (coming out to a 3d6 hka haymaker). Conan on the other hand...

 

I figure a couple of common sense ways to deal with the issue is either apply the "Real Weapon" lim as it was meant, i.e. as you see fit (with a clear veto over any undo whining) or don't let your fantasy bricks take unrealistically high strengths.

 

Mancer

[Gary]

Originally posted by Mancer

Point taken, but Arnold in his prime wouldn't have a 23 Str -- that's a 1320 lb. dead lift. I'd place him in the 16-20 range (coming out to a 3d6 hka haymaker). Conan on the other hand...

 

I figure a couple of common sense ways to deal with the issue is either apply the "Real Weapon" lim as it was meant, i.e. as you see fit (with a clear veto over any undo whining) or don't let your fantasy bricks take unrealistically high strengths.

 

Mancer

 

I think he's 21-23 myself in his prime. He was winning all those body building titles for a reason. Even at 18-20, it's still 3.5d6 hka with a haymaker.

 

I think you simply have to apply common sense no matter what the game mechanics say. A strong man with an axe will do zippo vs a M-1 Abrams, and he'll simply make a loud noise if he falls on the turret from a great height.

[keithcurtis]

I think part of the problem is in the range of damage. A strong character with an axe might do (say) 2d6 HKA. That's anywhere from 2-12 Bod per attack, not assuming skill levels or maneuver modifications. To make an armor it cannot penetrate requires a minimum 12 DEF, even more if you include the aforementioned modifiers.

If the range of damage was 3-5 Bod, you could rule that things impervious to battle axes would have to have 6 DEF. Then your rocket launcher that does 5-8 Bod would be virtually guaranteed to get through. Characters would have to be scaled down in body to match of course.

 

I figure the Real Weapon limitation is probably a lot easier to implement.

 

Besides, having tried to destroy objects with other objects in real life (and who hasn't?), there are a LOT of variables. A well-made wooden door can take an awful lot of axe-pounding. A cheap one might be destroyed by a well placed kick. Try breaking up a modern sofa with a sledg-hammer. Pretty simple. Now try breaking up a sofa 40 years old with that same sledgehammer. You'll be at it all afternoon. This last was a real life experience.

 

A good GM should be able to convince a reasonable player that one particular barrier is more impervious than another.

 

Keith "No laws were broken, and only two small pieces of funiture were destoyed to make this post" Curtis

[Old Man]

Having thought about this for a bit I think there's three main problems: the range of damage, as you say; the type of damage, i.e. piercing vs. cutting vs. blunt; and lastly, that the DEF/BODY scheme is flawed. There's more to object damage than simple DEF/BODY can account for. Swing your baseball bat at a DEF 1 BODY 1 plate glass window and the window shatters--pretty easy, right? Now suppose that glass window is two feet thick. In real life you could swing all day at that thing and if you're really lucky you'll scratch it, even though it's made of the same stuff and therefore has the same DEF. But in Hero you'll get through it in about a minute given haymaker swings and recoveries. DEF really ought to scale in some way as BODY increases--this would help fix a third of the problem, at least.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Old Man

Having thought about this for a bit I think there's three main problems: the range of damage, as you say; the type of damage, i.e. piercing vs. cutting vs. blunt; and lastly, that the DEF/BODY scheme is flawed. There's more to object damage than simple DEF/BODY can account for. Swing your baseball bat at a DEF 1 BODY 1 plate glass window and the window shatters--pretty easy, right? Now suppose that glass window is two feet thick. In real life you could swing all day at that thing and if you're really lucky you'll scratch it, even though it's made of the same stuff and therefore has the same DEF. But in Hero you'll get through it in about a minute given haymaker swings and recoveries. DEF really ought to scale in some way as BODY increases--this would help fix a third of the problem, at least.

I couldn't agree more.

 

Originally posted by Nelijal

I think one problem is that HERO assumes DEF to be a function of material type only, and BODY to be a function of how much of that material is in an object. In reality, DEF is also affected by the amount of material present.

 

For example, a sword or .45ACP can do a lot of damage to a steel car body (they still exist, don't they?), but the same weapons used against a battleship turret will do nothing more than chip the paint (even assuming the two were made of the same grade of steel).

[Old Man]

Perhaps a given material should be defined as a ratio of DEF/BODY instead of just DEF. So we could define wood to be DEF 2/BODY 3 per inch of thickness, while granite would be DEF 5/BODY 2 per inch. Then a 4" thick door would be 8DEF/12 BODY if wood, and if granite, would be 20 DEF / 8 BODY. That simulates the relationship between hardness and brittleness a little better.

 

The numbers are pretty high, but could be tweaked. Besides, for heroic level campaigns I think higher values are necessary. The numbers above aren't that far off, given that a normal human can do about 1.5d6K to a wooden door with an axe, and wouldn't have a chance of getting through the granite in anything like combat time, even with a pick doing 1d6+1K AP.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Old Man

Perhaps a given material should be defined as a ratio of DEF/BODY instead of just DEF. So we could define wood to be DEF 2/BODY 3 per inch of thickness, while granite would be DEF 5/BODY 2 per inch. Then a 4" thick door would be 8DEF/12 BODY if wood, and if granite, would be 20 DEF / 8 BODY. That simulates the relationship between hardness and brittleness a little better.

 

The numbers are pretty high, but could be tweaked. Besides, for heroic level campaigns I think higher values are necessary. The numbers above aren't that far off, given that a normal human can do about 1.5d6K to a wooden door with an axe, and wouldn't have a chance of getting through the granite in anything like combat time, even with a pick doing 1d6+1K AP.

Kewl, I think we're getting somewhere. BODY should probably be a linear function as you describe above--twice the stuff, twice the BODY. DEF might work better as a log function; for example, adding the DEF factor for each doubling of the thickness/material. So, for the DEF 2/BODY 3 per inch wood above, two inches would be DEF 4/BODY 6, four inches would be DEF 6/BODY 12, and so forth. How does that sound?

 

We just need a good chart of base values to go from.

[Toadmaster]

I think you are on to something here, I am tingly with anticipation. Good work.

 

Now something else to complicate matters. Armor, you take a 1/4" thick piece of steel and call it a breast plate and it just has DEF but you make it into a wall and suddenly it has Body. Perhaps Body should only apply to an attack trying to open a large breach while only DEF would apply if you are just poking a hole through it, so blasting away at a wood door to hit the guy holding it shut woud only have to deal with the DEF before affecting the target on the other side but trying to chop the door down so you could get in there would go against DEF and Body. The same would apply to armor, blasting a hole in a tank use the DEF but if you want to rip a large hole you have to overcome the facings Body seperately from the vehicles Body.

[Nelijal]

Yes, I think we're making progress, although I'm not comfortable with you sharing your tingly sensations with the rest of us.

 

Okay, it sounds like we're heading in the direction of DEF being defined as the BODY damage required to "poke thru" something, and BODY describing the amount of damage to make a given size hole. FREd describes that sort of thing, just not very well, IMHO (no offense, Steve).

 

This makes sense in that, by definition, if you exceed an armor's DEF, you do damage to the sucker wearing the armor, so we're in tune with FREd there. But, if you've poked thru the armor and the resulting hole is permanent, then you've also done damage to the armor itself; this needs to be accounted for as well. Same for shooting thru a door; the hole remains after you've snuffed the guy on the other side.

 

So I would say that if you've gotten past DEF, there is at least the possibility of damage done to the object/armor. (I say possibility because you could do BODY damage to someone wearing maille armor without damaging the maille links to a significant degree.) Once you've done that DEF+BODY to make that initial breach, further BODY done to the material increases the size of that breach.

 

There is also the issue of armor slowly degrading as it is damaged, and what we're doing here will help define that for those who want to include that in their game. After all, a few good strikes to the same Hit Location, and the DEF for that area should be reduced against future attacks. (This will probably also apply to weapon breakage, which has not been addressed very well.)

 

1. What constitutes making that original breach?

1. BODY damage to an area that's equal to some factor of DEF? For example, DEFx2 in BODY makes a hole in the armor or door.

2. How does BODY done translate to the size of the breach?

1. Compare total BODY to BODY done and apply that ratio to the size of the object? For example, once you've damaged a door to half its original BODY, then half the door is gone.
    
   Or should we say that at 1/2 BODY done, 1/4 the object is gone, since I believe FREd states that to totally destroy something requires 2x its original BODY?

This is kewl, a nice, productive thread with no flaming (knocks on wood). Keep it coming.

[Old Man]

I like the idea of doubling the BODY damage required to fully destroy something or create a breach. That makes a lot of sense.

 

Here's another poorly thought out idea. What if some of the DEF was ablative based on the current BODY of the object? Call it aDEF for short. So any time you inflict 1 BODY on the thing, the aDEF goes down by 1 too. So if you have a stone wall that's 5 DEF + 3 aDEF, and 5 BODY, and you hit it for 10, inflicting 2 BODY, it's now at 5 DEF + 1 aDEF and 3 BODY. So once you cause some structural damage to the wall it's noticeably weaker.

 

Now that I look at it it seems a little clunky, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.