Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

[Claire Redfield]

In the 5E Star HERO book (one of my favoritest books, I wish I hadn't sold it, lo those many years ago), it listed the attack needed to destroy a planet as something like RKA 51D6, if I remember correctly. In 6E Star HERO, it goes with a 10D6 RKA, using Megascale Area to apply that evenly across the whole planet.

 

Why the change? I rather liked the bigger number, as it meant a planet-busting attack wrecked everything in its path, Death Star- or Dragon Ball-style. Believe it or not, I actually like a fair bit of Dragon Ball, and Hero seems to me like it'll be the only system, except maybe BESM 3rd, that will actually run the setting. So I was curious, and thought I would ask you HERO gurus.

[Badger]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Never had Star Hero, myself. But, it seems to me a planet buster should have Megascale (though 10d6, seems a little low). Though, I dont think all planets should necessarily be created equal (size and all)

 

Note: Tom me at least a planet should have a whole lot of BODY. But, I never quite ever got to this level of pop in a game, so I admit to being a bit clueless on this one.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

If we're talking about applying the 10d6 RKA to each individual 2m x 2m x 2m volume of rock, I'd think it would be enough. Does the write-up include Indirect so it affects every volume unit simultaneously rather than having to dig through the outer ones first?

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

I'd have to check, as I'm not sure. I think it might just be area effect wide enough to target the entire planet at once. Ah, okay, here we go: the writeup assumes that the whole Earth counts as stone (19 Body, 5 PD/10 ED), though it does give mention that you can recalculate to account for the Earth's core and so on.

 

RKA 10d6, Area of Effect (1m Radius; +1/4), MegaScale (affects entire Earth; +2), costs 487 points.

[dmjalund]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

using RAW, without indirect, an area affect can only attack something from the outside, regardless how large the area is!

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

So, would the 51d6 RKA be assumed to just be targeting the Body of a massive stellar object as a whole, while the 10d6 version is using some tricks to target every square meter of the planet individually?

[Lucius]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

So' date=' would the 51d6 RKA be assumed to just be targeting the Body of a massive stellar object as a whole, while the 10d6 version is using some tricks to target every square meter of the planet individually?[/quote']

 

That's about the (Megascale) size of it

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to target every parking meter simultaneously

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

In the 5E Star HERO book (one of my favoritest books, I wish I hadn't sold it, lo those many years ago), it listed the attack needed to destroy a planet as something like RKA 51D6, if I remember correctly. In 6E Star HERO, it goes with a 10D6 RKA, using Megascale Area to apply that evenly across the whole planet.

 

Why the change? I rather liked the bigger number, as it meant a planet-busting attack wrecked everything in its path, Death Star- or Dragon Ball-style. Believe it or not, I actually like a fair bit of Dragon Ball, and Hero seems to me like it'll be the only system, except maybe BESM 3rd, that will actually run the setting. So I was curious, and thought I would ask you HERO gurus.

Think about it that way: How often do SonGoku and C.O. survive or even block attacks taht "would destroy the planet"? Using the Megascale makes it that much easier.

Also keep in mind that if Area Of Effect destroys somethign it goes on beyond it.

 

It also depends on how the planet is built/handeled in your campaing. APG II has soem nice stuff regardign that:

A STR chart that includes planets (so you know what STR tractor beam you need).

And ideas about "attackign and Destroyign large objects", since the rules for Walls simply don't work taht well for that. It uses earth (1.37 x 10^20; asume 100% is just stone to make it easier) as a test-case:

1. Simple way: Multiply the Body by the number of times it has 1 m³. That gives earth 2.6 x 10^21 BODY so you only need a 7.4 x 10^20 dice of Killing Damage.

2. Take it as a wall. Add +1 Body for each "doubling" of the size relative to a 1m³ object. Earth needs 67 doublings, so it has 86 Body in total. That could make the planet to easy to destroy and raises some quesitons about Penetarting Attacks...

3. (the default) View every 1m³ as a seperate thing. Every 19 body you do to a mountain destroy 1m³. You can use area of effect/megascale to affect more "parts" of it at once. Also keep in mind that if a AOE destroys an object, it goes on beyond it. It was never really stopped and afaik the things behind the object don't even get the defense of the obstacle.

 

Now it should be clear why the choose it: The numbers are more manageable in the system. This is exactly what Megascale is there for: Bringing flavorfull but not gamebreaking abilities into a point range that simulates it usefullness. And allowign son goku/superman to survive attacks that destroy planets.

[Sougen]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

I think it makes sense for it to be done that way. We are still talking about an extremely expensive attack (500pt range) that allows the GM to handle the 'destroy' mechanic on just 10 dice. Likewise, since it operates on the assumption that the planet is made of one uniform substance and that in order to destroy the entirety of the planet, one must destroy the substance in question, it allows GMs an easy to reference chart for determining the difficulty of destroying a variety of planets (ones with a harder core or softer one). Lastly, it gives us a quick way to judge 'non-lethal' damage. What happens if we didn't destroy it all? Well, the law of averages on 10 dice is strong but not absolute; so one can expect to see attacks that fail miserably or succeed in the most devastating of ways.

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Lastly' date=' it gives us a quick way to judge 'non-lethal' damage. What happens if we didn't destroy it all? Well, the law of averages on 10 dice is strong but not absolute; so one can expect to see attacks that fail miserably or succeed in the most devastating of ways.[/quote']

On average those dice to 35 Body. The chance to get less than 19 is pretty slim. Less than 10 is impossible.

Or you jsut use Standart Effect.

[Sougen]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

On average those dice to 35 Body. The chance to get less than 19 is pretty slim. Less than 10 is impossible.

Or you jsut use Standart Effect.

 

But it is more than just 19 body. It is 19 body plus the 10ed (or 5pd) defense. So we are really looking at 29 damage being needed - this is still below the low average that Standard Effect is set at, but not by much. Likewise, the 10d6 attack can be adjusted up and down to make it more or less effective. Thus, it is possible to build an attack that would level most everything on a planet without destroying the planet itself just by lowering the damage value. It also provides a nice clear mechanic for astral bombardment that isn't on the "planet destroying" level just by adjusting the megascale and / or damage values.

 

All in all, I like the way it is handled.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Think about it that way: How often do SonGoku and C.O. survive or even block attacks taht "would destroy the planet"?

 

Umm...I've never blocked an attack that would destroy a planet...

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

But it is more than just 19 body. It is 19 body plus the 10ed (or 5pd) defense. So we are really looking at 29 damage being needed - this is still below the low average that Standard Effect is set at' date=' but not by much.[/quote']

It's still below what Standart Effect can do. So I don't see how anyone would bother making that roll. It's not like the usual explanations for making a high/low roll* would work. And even at a roll as low as 20 everyone on the planet croaks. Even beign inside a building does not help, as long as there are windows or inner walls the shockwave can easily break through. And even those inside the bunker need LS: Self Contained Breathing, because the Atmosphere takes the same damage.

 

(*hitting a vulnerable spot or not).

[Sougen]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

It's still below what Standart Effect can do. So I don't see how anyone would bother making that roll. It's not like the usual explanations for making a high/low roll* would work. And even at a roll as low as 20 everyone on the planet croaks. Even beign inside a building does not help, as long as there are windows or inner walls the shockwave can easily break through. And even those inside the bunker need LS: Self Contained Breathing, because the Atmosphere takes the same damage.

 

(*hitting a vulnerable spot or not).

 

With a low roll of 20, the planet will still have half its body. That isn't to say that everything is right as rain, but I think you may be slightly exaggerating the destruction level. After all, we don't kill of characters who have only taken half their body in damage. Nor do we destroy vault doors that have only taken half their body in damage. So why kill off the planet if it has only taken half of its? And again, this assumes that 10d6 is the standard for use. It can be adjusted up and down to help get the various levels of potential effect desired. For example, a 6d6 attack on this kind would average out 21 body damage of which only 11 (or just over half the total body of the planet) would be lost. That seems like a dire straights' situation, but not a "all is lost" / the planet is destroyed situation.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

"Destroying a planet" can have a couple of different meanings:

 

1. Blowing it completely apart and scattering the pieces far and wide, like the main weapon on the Death Star.

 

2. Rendering the planet's surface completely barren and uninhabitable, like the relativistic weapons in The Killing Star.

 

Obviously #2 requires far less powerful weaponry. For my campaign, I'd use the damage figure from Star Hero 5E for the #1 definition of "destroying a planet" and the damage figure from Star Hero 6E for the #2 definition. (As a bare minimum.)

 

For most purposes, #2 is more than adequate. Nukes, R-bombs or a good-sized asteroid will make a planetary surface uninhabitable for many years, which is just as good as wiping it out of existence as far as the enemy is concerned. Destroying the planet in the sense of definition #1 is just plain overkill, "special effects" shots in the movies notwithstanding. Actually watching something like that would probably leave the viewer blind and sterile, or worse.

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

With a low roll of 20' date=' the planet will still have half its body.[/quote']

It means the upper rocklayer of the surface (less than 1m deep) still has half it's body. The "dirt" on top of it is gone. Everything under it will be fine.

But: Every living being one the planet takes the same damage. 20 Body Killing Damage has been enough to kill 95% of the world popuation since 5E.

Take a look at 6E2 171. Everythign with ED+Body < 20 will be totally gone as well. Varporized, so to speak. Or better yet, let's see what survives:

Safe doors: 4/9 Body. at 24 they varporize

Large Vault doors: Not a scratch.

Boulder: they woudl survive, but maybe the should be handeled like teh Planet itself.

Solid Bridges will survive at around half body. Suspended bridges loose their cables and won't be so lucky.

Montains will be as sorched as the planet.

Armored Cars* survive.

Some big planes* might as well

As do Trains*

Armored walls are barely sratched. No other wall material survives, not even the I-beam structure.

Tanks and Submarines survive that.

Water and Contrete roads will propably not survive.**

 

*keep in midn taht they loose abilities as they loose body.

 

Just to re-itrate this: Anything less durable than solid rock is gone. Almost none of our building materials is even remotely as durable a solid rock. All these layers of contrete (cities, roads), dirt (the stuff plants grow in), humans and propably the entire water have completely varporzied.

 

1. Blowing it completely apart and scattering the pieces far and wide, like the main weapon on the Death Star.

 

2. Rendering the planet's surface completely barren and uninhabitable, like the relativistic weapons in The Killing Star.

 

Obviously #2 requires far less powerful weaponry. For my campaign, I'd use the damage figure from Star Hero 5E for the #1 definition of "destroying a planet" and the damage figure from Star Hero 6E for the #2 definition. (As a bare minimum.)

 

For most purposes, #2 is more than adequate. Nukes, R-bombs or a good-sized asteroid will make a planetary surface uninhabitable for many years, which is just as good as wiping it out of existence as far as the enemy is concerned. Destroying the planet in the sense of definition #1 is just plain overkill, "special effects" shots in the movies notwithstanding. Actually watching something like that would probably leave the viewer blind and sterile, or worse.

In Wign Commander method one was teh way to win, because they had the right target. And perhaps because a Solo-Flight mission was a better finale than escorting the BFG.

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

They block the big attacks occasionally. Frieza did it, and Super Saiyan Goku deflected an attack from Frieza later on that would have blown up the entire planet.

 

Hehe, and Frieza survived a planet exploding underneath him, after marathon-fighting all the heroes, including Goku, cutting himself in half with his own attack, being given just enough energy to survive and escape by Goku and then getting blasted by Goku a final time. Previously he had said he didn't have enough energy to survive to the explosion. Guess he was wrong. He floated in space for a couple weeks, hovering on the edge of death, until his father found him.

 

Anyway, the energy control seems to follow a few rules. Planet-smashing attacks, or perhaps even those that would "only" destroy a mountain range or continent or something, can vaporize an unprepared warrior. If they're ready for the blast, then generally they can defend against it, but if caught unprepared, even lower level blasts like nukes could be a threat.

 

It's like... say Warrior A has a total Energy Blast of 100 (chosen just as a random number for illustration purposes, not an actual game mechanic). Her base defense is such that blasts of 40 or less probably won't even hurt her, or not much, and things like 20 or less (missiles or the like) don't stand a chance. She can also put up enough of a force field to block/deflect a blast of up to 100, if she has a chance to put energy into the defense. If she is surprised or otherwise caught unawares, blasts of 60 or more could hurt her, maybe kill her if she is already badly wounded, and blasts of 100 will definitely destroy her, as well as planets or whatever (depending on the level at which the game takes place), if she is hit by them.

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

They block the big attacks occasionally. Frieza did it' date=' and Super Saiyan Goku deflected an attack from Frieza later on that would have blown up the entire planet.[/quote']

Those Kind of "Blocks"* might be better handeled using the Rules Interference (APG I 170) or Contest of Power (APG I 174).

Bringing such ultility powers (and other things like World Wide Teleport, World Wide anti technology-field or World Wide Weather Controll) into an easier to manage Active Points range helps a lot.

Needing only a 10d6 RKA (30 DC), Megascale instead of 51D6 RKA (153 DC) to blow up a planet makes the math easier. And Planet Destroyign blast easier to overcome for those who should be able to overcome the.

 

*Anotehr example is Wonder Woman "Blocking" Gigantas Area of Effect Fist Attack.

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Well, keeping numbers more manageable isn't a bad thing. These guys can vaporize planets at anywhere from Frieza's level on up, and do so fairly effortlessly. So if we consider Frieza's first form to have the bare minimum necessary to blow up a planet, it would still go up from there. I mean, don't be expecting Supes or Wonder Woman or people to tank blasts like that. Even the characters doing this stuff in Dragon Ball can't always do that.

 

You're totally right about contests of power and stuff. That happens all the time in the show. At Super Saiyan 2 level, these characters can blow up whole solar systems, like Cell was going to do, and got into a contest of power (an epic beam struggle) with Super Saiyan 2 Gohan. It was pretty fun. So by that point, RKAs will have gone up, as the power levels of the character go up, of course. Makes me shudder to think of what Super Saiyan 3+ power levels can do. Then again, Buu was tearing apart the universe by shattering dimensions, just by being angry...

 

Mostly what I need is a good baseline for what it would take to destroy a planet. RKA 10d6 might be a little low for my purposes (since a lot of DB characters would survive that, even if hit directly and unprepared), but it's a much more manageable starting point than 51d6.

 

For what it's worth, I love Surbrook's DB stuff and, thanks to Lord Liaden, I'm using that as a basis. But I am not trying to tone things down; rather, I want to see if HERO has what it takes to capture the power levels as depicted in the source.

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Well' date=' keeping numbers more manageable isn't a bad thing. These guys can vaporize planets at anywhere from Frieza's level on up, and do so fairly effortlessly. So if we consider Frieza's first form to have the bare minimum necessary to blow up a planet, it would still go up from there.[/quote']

At least master Roshi was able to Blow up the Moon. Picolo did Moon II effortlessly. But then again the moon isn't that big or solid.

Vegita when attacking earth blew up a planet - but in a filler. And I think his contest of power with Son Goku was a attack that could destroy earth - but propably not outright.

 

I mean' date=' don't be expecting Supes or Wonder Woman or people to tank blasts like that. Even the characters [i']doing [/i]this stuff in Dragon Ball can't always do that.

Superman vs. Tanks or Deathray is a good example. Deathrays need a lot of Range without exploding the active points.

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

At least master Roshi was able to Blow up the Moon. Picolo did Moon II effortlessly. But then again the moon isn't that big or solid.

Vegita when attacking earth blew up a planet - but in a filler. And I think his contest of power with Son Goku was a attack that could destroy earth - but propably not outright.

 

Right. I consider the baseline for "can blow up a planet in one go, without using up all his/her power" to be at the level of Frieza's first form. Super Saiyan 2 can destroy a solar system with one blast (at considerable effort, but still!), and beyond that, I suppose it doesn't really matter, does it? Super Saiyan 3-level characters have far greater energy control, so who knows? And think about what someone like Super Vegito could accomplish... O.o

 

Anyway, so it's useful to establish benchmarks from which to work. Usually, I try to establish these benchmarks based on key characters and plateaus of power seen in the various sagas. Generally, it's pretty easy: Goku/Vegeta, Goku/Frieza, Goku/Cell, Gohan/Cell, Goku/Buu, and so on. It's just a matter of finding the right numbers.

 

It's fun, though, experimenting!

 

Superman vs. Tanks or Deathray is a good example. Deathrays need a lot of Range without exploding the active points.

 

So, MegaScale it? Sure, that works for me. I like the idea of using MS AoE, it makes things easier. But the actual damage output still has to be pretty significant.

 

What's it take to completely destroy/vaporize a vault door, for instance?

[Christopher]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Right. I consider the baseline for "can blow up a planet in one go, without using up all his/her power" to be at the level of Frieza's first form. Super Saiyan 2 can destroy a solar system with one blast (at considerable effort, but still!), and beyond that, I suppose it doesn't really matter, does it? Super Saiyan 3-level characters have far greater energy control, so who knows? And think about what someone like Super Vegito could accomplish... O.o

 

Anyway, so it's useful to establish benchmarks from which to work. Usually, I try to establish these benchmarks based on key characters and plateaus of power seen in the various sagas. Generally, it's pretty easy: Goku/Vegeta, Goku/Frieza, Goku/Cell, Gohan/Cell, Goku/Buu, and so on. It's just a matter of finding the right numbers.

Anime/Mange Characters usually tend not to be measured in power, but in the Scale of the power level. In the battle against Cell, only Son Goku, Son Gohan, Trunks and Vegita were on the right scale. But most of them still on a way to low power level.

SSJ 2 Gohan and Perfect Cell 2 where on a different Scale again.

 

So, MegaScale it? Sure, that works for me. I like the idea of using MS AoE, it makes things easier. But the actual damage output still has to be pretty significant.

 

What's it take to completely destroy/vaporize a vault door, for instance?

In one of his first on Screen Adventures Superman went on agaisnt a Death Ray that was destroyign the Daily Planet (it attacked the lowest floor). Basically a RKA, Megascale Range, Continous.

 

About the damage output: The current Rules for big objects never took the idea of it just having "multiple lifes"/layers into account. A vault door is not like a barrier, it's a layer of multiple barriers. PD/ED/Body values try to simulate this in one "chunk" of values. But trying to retool it now is to complicated.

But generally I would advise to just go through the wall isntead of the door. Or make the "attack" of ripping out the door actualyl an attack going against the hinges/wall. Under the current Rule Penetrating also works good, maybe too good.

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Doesn't the vault door have both a BODY score and PD/ED, as well? I haven't looked at the rules for destroying objects just yet.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

Atmosphere - Natural Shields plus Albative Force Field only vs Physical Attacks and half vs Energy Attacks.

 

Planetary Body - Armor plus Albative Armor.

 

Water Body - Force Field Alblative.

 

vs

 

Immediate Destruction Attacks.

 

vs

 

Continuing Destruction Attacks.

[Claire Redfield]

Re: Why the change in destroying planets between SH 5E and SH 6E?

 

I... I am not sure what to do with that. O.o