Supers vs. Military

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

The Hulk' date=' routinely. Thor, easily. The Fantastic Four, with a little more difficulty and coordination. Iron Man, with about the same ease that he takes out tanks in the current movies. Spider-Man, not so much.[/quote']

 

I don't know. I think The Hulk and Thor could do well against a single military unit of moderate size, but I don't see them singlhandedly taking out an army. Even the Hulk at some point would have to rest.

[vitruvian23]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Fair enough, but given the stats presented by the OP for a single Abrams, even taking out a moderate sized unit with some tanks and fighter jets and such is going to require more powerful attacks and defenses than usually given to these sorts of characters in writeups.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Fair enough' date=' but given the stats presented by the OP for a [i']single [/i]Abrams, even taking out a moderate sized unit with some tanks and fighter jets and such is going to require more powerful attacks and defenses than usually given to these sorts of characters in writeups.

 

Yeah. That has been one of the common gripes about Hero (specifically Champions) for a long time. There are ways to fudge to get that effect, but there are always those who say that you shouldn't have to. If I ever run a game again, I would use house rules for the "Real Weapon" disad to get that effect, as is mentioned upthread somewhere, as well as in other threads.

 

On the other hand, since most PC groups are supposed to be more in line with the X-Men and The Outsiders than the JLA, an infantry platoon, with tank and artilllery support, should be a credible threat.

[Hrimhari]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Personally, I tend to scale down the stats provided for real weapons... but load them up with advantages. Generally they end up 25-40% lower in damage, but with multiple levels of AP, Penetrating, or whatever. This allows tanks to have lower levels of defences too (again, with multiple levels of hardness, at least on the front armour), so heroes (or villains) with sufficient brute force can do damage or even crush the tanks. It works very well for the supers genre. Keeps military heavy weapons dangerous, but not overwhelming; and tanks tough, but not invulnerable.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

I don't know. I think The Hulk and Thor could do well against a single military unit of moderate size' date=' but I don't see them singlhandedly taking out an army. Even the Hulk at some point would have to rest.[/quote']

 

Well, they can both exert themselves for several hours. If you posit taking out, say, one platoon(infantry or mechanized) per minute, one company every 5 minutes, one battalion every half hour, I think there's an outside chance they could take out up to a whole division before wearing down. Maybe one of the mightier versions of the Avengers could take out a multi-division army in a day or two.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Fair enough' date=' but given the stats presented by the OP for a [i']single [/i]Abrams, even taking out a moderate sized unit with some tanks and fighter jets and such is going to require more powerful attacks and defenses than usually given to these sorts of characters in writeups.

 

Originally in Champions, IIRC, a tank had 19 frontal DEF and 14-16 everywhere else, and it had a 5-6d6 RKA, possibly AP. Because haymakers originally gave you 1.5 x STR in damage, a 60 STR brick could destroy a tank with a few haymakers against the top or rear or side armor, and even get a point of body through on the front, with a pushed haymaker. With the current rules, Grond might be able to knock around an M1 Abrams, but even with a pushed haymaker and a very good roll, he's not putting even a body pip of damage through, even though he's throwing 24 DCs and can lift a heavy cruiser with his pushed STR. Even Valak, Ripper and Gargantua, working together and throwing 26d6 pushed haymakers, can't dent the frontal armor, and need several hits to the side in order to take one out. Those are characters who can, in theory, lift a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier over their heads(that's 2 gigajoules of potential energy, folks; the average anti-tank round has 5-10 megajoules of kinetic energy and at the high end is capable of penetrating M1 armor). OTOH, the Abrams' 8d6 KA (averaging 28 body and 56 stun per hit) is likely to take down a superbrick within 5-10 hits.

 

Steve Long rarely gets writeups wrong, but when he does, they are spectacularly wrong.

[vitruvian23]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Originally in Champions, IIRC, a tank had 19 frontal DEF and 14-16 everywhere else, and it had a 5-6d6 RKA, possibly AP. Because haymakers originally gave you 1.5 x STR in damage, a 60 STR brick could destroy a tank with a few haymakers against the top or rear or side armor, and even get a point of body through on the front, with a pushed haymaker. With the current rules, Grond might be able to knock around an M1 Abrams, but even with a pushed haymaker and a very good roll, he's not putting even a body pip of damage through, even though he's throwing 24 DCs and can lift a heavy cruiser with his pushed STR. Even Valak, Ripper and Gargantua, working together and throwing 26d6 pushed haymakers, can't dent the frontal armor, and need several hits to the side in order to take one out. Those are characters who can, in theory, lift a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier over their heads(that's 2 gigajoules of potential energy, folks; the average anti-tank round has 5-10 megajoules of kinetic energy and at the high end is capable of penetrating M1 armor). OTOH, the Abrams' 8d6 KA (averaging 28 body and 56 stun per hit) is likely to take down a superbrick within 5-10 hits.

 

Steve Long rarely gets writeups wrong, but when he does, they are spectacularly wrong.

 

It's been a while and at least an edition or two since I've played Hero/Champions, honestly, but I thought I remembered that tank armor and weaponry didn't used to be so overwhelming. Maybe it's been pushed *too* high in recent years, and should be scaled so it's always possible for a brick to get through at least the side armor of something the brick can lift with a pushed Haymaker or the like?

[JmOz]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

while I agree, I think it should be mentioned that there are optional rules (can't remember if they are in 6th or in Champions) to help with this (Such as making anything "real" having 1/2 defence vs supers and doind 1/2 damage)

[OddHat]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

I don't know. I think The Hulk and Thor could do well against a single military unit of moderate size' date=' but I don't see them singlhandedly taking out an army. Even the Hulk at some point would have to rest.[/quote']

 

How you as fan/writer/storyteller/gamemaster see the characters is the key issue.

 

There is at least one version of Thor that can wipe out an entire alien invasion fleet on his own, and that's not the most powerful version. That version of Thor shouldn't have any problems with conventional military forces, imo and all that.

 

There have been versions of Superman that could build a new Earth identical to the original in 7 minutes, destroy planets accidentally, or blow out a sun with his breath. Alan Moore's Suprema arm wrestled the embodiment of all Human Evil to a draw. Those characters shouldn't even notice conventional military forces, if you're using them at that power level.

 

You can tell a story where Superman gets knocked out by a thug with a blackjack; you can tell a story where he flies through the heart of the Sun. In a game I run, those are not the same write ups of Superman.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Upon reflection, I think a 120mm tank gun should be doing around 6d6 AP KA, maybe 6d6+1, and that modern tank frontal armor should be in the 16-18 frontal/12-14 side range, with around 15-20 total body and perhaps hardening for certain composite/chobham/ceramic style armors. When applying real-world small arms against tanks, use the "standard effect" rules--so a .50 caliber round will do 9 body instead of 3-18. Assuming a 400 point brick has a STR in the 60-80 range, they can then damage the side armor with a straight punch, and the front armor with a haymaker(pushed or not).

[Netzilla]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

while I agree' date=' I think it should be mentioned that there are optional rules (can't remember if they are in 6th or in Champions) to help with this (Such as making anything "real" having 1/2 defence vs supers and doind 1/2 damage)[/quote']

 

I'm pretty sure that's a house rule.

[JmOz]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

I'm pretty sure that's a house rule.

 

Both are in 6e2 as toolkiting sugestions, both are refrenced in Champions page 182

 

Damage on page 201

Defence on page 170

 

Now I am not sure how "legal" the tookit suggestions are, I personaly consider them optional rules, but intelegent people might disagree...

[Netzilla]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Both are in 6e2 as toolkiting sugestions, both are refrenced in Champions page 182

 

Damage on page 201

Defence on page 170

 

Now I am not sure how "legal" the tookit suggestions are, I personaly consider them optional rules, but intelegent people might disagree...

 

I stand corrected. I just checked my copy of 5ER and they aren't in the equivalent sections as far as I could see. The pages you mention have (among other options) almost exactly the house rule I've been using for supers since 4E. I guess it was a more common solution than I thought.

[JmOz]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

not a problem. Toolkitting is something odd to me, as it is a kind of "Official" house rule type of thing.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

not a problem. Toolkitting is something odd to me' date=' as it is a kind of "Official" house rule type of thing.[/quote']

To me, the only real issue with toolkitting is you then have to inform your gaming group what variations or house rules you're using in the campaign.

[Netzilla]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

To me' date=' the only real issue with toolkitting is you then have to inform your gaming group what variations or house rules you're using in the campaign.[/quote']

 

Well, that's not really any different than telling them which optional rule you're using.

[Markdoc]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

It's been a while and at least an edition or two since I've played Hero/Champions' date=' honestly, but I [i']thought [/i]I remembered that tank armor and weaponry didn't used to be so overwhelming. Maybe it's been pushed *too* high in recent years, and should be scaled so it's always possible for a brick to get through at least the side armor of something the brick can lift with a pushed Haymaker or the like?

 

Modern weapons have been increased in damage over the last couple of editions - but that's probably because of all the people who complained that they were too wimpy before

 

This has never been a problem for our groups - we just made our top line supers super - so we had Bricks with hardened or partially hardened rDEF in excess of 50 and PCs with 18d6 AP normal attacks or up to 8d6 HKA. Those characters performed like the heavy hitters of Marvel or DC, annihilating conventional military forces, trashing buildings during their fights, etc etc.

 

It is a relatively simple fix. If you want supers who can perform at that level, give them the points to do so: and then give them suitable threats to deal with.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

It is a relatively simple fix. If you want supers who can perform at that level' date=' give them the points to do so: and then give them suitable threats to deal with.[/quote']

 

Yes, that has always been a good thing about Hero / Champions, IMO. To adjust power levels (or replicate something), it is mainly about feeding in points wherever they will do the most good.

[Ice9]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Modern weapons have been increased in damage over the last couple of editions - but that's probably because of all the people who complained that they were too wimpy before

This is true - if you want the relationship between normal people and weapons to be at all similar to reality, then tank-class weapons/armor actually do need to be quite strong. And superheroes that can smash through those tanks should be splattering anyone remotely normal with a single punch, and shrugging off most handheld weaponry. Honestly, something like D&D's HP scale would almost make sense here - normal people with 2-4 BODY, and bricks with 90-120 or more. Of course, DEF means the difference doesn't need to be that extreme, but if you want Superman or the Hulk, you do want a lot higher than typical Champions characters, both defense and offense wise.

 

In any case, having the same heroes smash through battalions of tanks and then be in danger from agents with assault rifles is only going to make sense with some kind of situational defenses - force fields that have inconveniently run out of power, combat luck that sometimes fails, SC2-style "heavy only" shields, whatever. So if that's what you want - model the characters that way.

[OddHat]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Modern weapons have been increased in damage over the last couple of editions - but that's probably because of all the people who complained that they were too wimpy before

 

This has never been a problem for our groups - we just made our top line supers super - so we had Bricks with hardened or partially hardened rDEF in excess of 50 and PCs with 18d6 AP normal attacks or up to 8d6 HKA. Those characters performed like the heavy hitters of Marvel or DC, annihilating conventional military forces, trashing buildings during their fights, etc etc.

 

It is a relatively simple fix. If you want supers who can perform at that level, give them the points to do so: and then give them suitable threats to deal with.

Yup. Don't want to use optional rules? Then, if you're going to use the official write ups of military hardware and environmental damage, you'll need to scale your Supers from that baseline.

 

Of course, you'll end up with Bricks who risk accidentally splatting normal humans if they hit at anywhere near full strength, but that's not a problem if you make it clear to your players and they're willing to play along.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

Yup. Don't want to use optional rules? Then, if you're going to use the official write ups of military hardware and environmental damage, you'll need to scale your Supers from that baseline.

 

Of course, you'll end up with Bricks who risk accidentally splatting normal humans if they hit at anywhere near full strength, but that's not a problem if you make it clear to your players and they're willing to play along.

 

You may wind up with weird complications like "2x effect from rodent-themed vigilantes", though.

[Hrimhari]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

In any case' date=' having the same heroes smash through battalions of tanks and then be in danger from agents with assault rifles is only going to make sense with some kind of situational defenses - force fields that have inconveniently run out of power, combat luck that sometimes fails, SC2-style "heavy only" shields, whatever. So if that's what you want - model the characters that way.[/quote']

I use Damage Reduction for this. I made it a bit cheaper in my game, to encourage people to take it (though I still keep a careful eye on it for balance purposes). It means that characters can face enemies of points value both higher and lower than theirs and not be either a) instantly swatted or amused. The team brick can take a shot from Dr Destroyer (one. One shot), but will still be threatened by multiple enemies of lower points value than himself.

[dmjalund]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

You may wind up with weird complications like "2x effect from rodent-themed vigilantes"' date=' though.[/quote']A bat is NOT a rodent (just ask George Clooney)

[OddHat]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

You may wind up with weird complications like "2x effect from rodent-themed vigilantes"' date=' though.[/quote']

 

The generic "you" might. I wouldn't.

 

In all seriousness, a "merely human" version of Batman should not be able to survive a full force punch from a version of Superman who can casually smash worlds, nor should that version of Superman even notice the best punch a "merely human" Batman can deliver. Batman in a power suit / Batman with a piece of Kryptonite / Batman under a Red Sun may be a different story.

 

Yes, there have been versions of Superman who can be knocked out by a thug with a kosh; there have also been versions that could survive Sun Diving. In my games, I'm not using the same write up for both versions, even if I could heap on a list of complications and VPPs slots to simulate it. You can, of course; It all depends on the comic book story you're telling. It's just not a path I'd use.

[Vulcan]

Re: Supers vs. Military

 

In all seriousness' date=' a "merely human" version of Batman should not be able to survive a full force punch from a version of Superman who can casually smash worlds, nor should that version of Superman even notice the best punch a "merely human" Batman can deliver.[/quote']

 

[Joker] There's nothing mere about Batmortal...[/Joker]