gojira Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 I don't know if this idea actually is easier, but I thought I'd toss it out there nevertheless. The recent "New Gamer" thread reminded me of something I've thought about a little. There seems to be a few folks who are "calculator impaired" when it comes to Hero. Could there be a way to make their lives a bit easier? Well, if they're willing to do some simple addition, I think I can take the long division out of the calculation of Limitations calculation. It's largely the same as the existing Limitations table in the Hero rules books. Except: 1. It goes by tens, not fives. 2. It lists all the limitations with one decimal place. To use this table, split your Active Points into ten's and unit's. Then look up each on the table. Add the two values found on the table together, round normally with Hero Math, and voila! You didn't have to deal with division at all to get your Real Points. I don't believe this is possible with the existing Limitations table in the Hero rules. For example, lets say you have a power with 72 Active Points, with a total of 1.25 (1 1/4) limitations. From the table, 70 AP at 1.25 is 31.1, and 2 AP at 1.25 is 0.9. Add the two together, and round Hero style, and you get 32. That's the Real Points of this power. I've checked this table carefully (all 1500 possible combinations) and there are very, very few cases where it looks like the rounding error might be off. However, I also hand checked a few of those errors, and I think if I use Hero math correctly, there aren't any errors. I used a very strict mathematical definition of rounding when I did the check, and it might have been too exacting for proper Hero rules. Give the table below a look and see what you think. I regard my work here as a very simple expression of a mathematical formula, and not copyrightable in any way. Free for anyone to use. Active Points LIM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.25 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 0.50 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 13.3 20.0 26.7 33.3 40.0 46.7 53.3 60.0 66.7 0.75 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.1 5.7 11.4 17.1 22.9 28.6 34.3 40.0 45.7 51.4 57.1 1.00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 1.25 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.4 8.9 13.3 17.8 22.2 26.7 31.1 35.6 40.0 44.4 1.50 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 1.75 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.6 7.3 10.9 14.5 18.2 21.8 25.5 29.1 32.7 36.4 2.00 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 23.3 26.7 30.0 33.3 2.25 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 6.2 9.2 12.3 15.4 18.5 21.5 24.6 27.7 30.8 2.50 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 5.7 8.6 11.4 14.3 17.1 20.0 22.9 25.7 28.6 2.75 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 5.3 8.0 10.7 13.3 16.0 18.7 21.3 24.0 26.7 3.00 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 3.50 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 4.4 6.7 8.9 11.1 13.3 15.6 17.8 20.0 22.2 3.75 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 4.2 6.3 8.4 10.5 12.6 14.7 16.8 18.9 21.1 4.00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Re: Making Limitations easier to calculate See Also 6E1 p362 Though you've added steps by 1 up to 10 where the table in the book only jumps by 5s up to 100. So it's less granular on the low end than yours, and more granular on the high end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gojira Posted April 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Re: Making Limitations easier to calculate Is that the same table as in 5e (p 279)? If so, I don't think it works. The added 1 through 10 steps, and the added decimal place, are required. Otherwise trying to use that table in the book as-is just produces too many rounding errors. I think mine is spot on 100% of the time. I still need to prove that, though. The error rate is definitely less than 2% -- 31 questionable results out of 1500 possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.