Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

[Armitage]

I don't know if it's the writing of Champions Complete, or the format, or what, but when I read it, I discovered at least two rules that I either didn't know about or had wrong.

 

1. Followers earn and spend experience points like normal characters. This goes back to at least 4e, but for some reason I always thought that a character improved his Followers by spending his own experience points, at the same 5:1 rate as buying them in the first place. Obviously, I haven't used Followers much.

 

2. Improvised weapons add to your Strength damage if their PD + BODY is greater than your base damage. This rule was introduced in 6e, but I completely missed it until I read Champions Complete. Previously, the only advantage to hitting someone with a chair, tree, or bus was reach or area effect. Now, there's a good reason for a soldier to butt stroke someone with his rifle (without needing to build the rifle with a separate Hand-to-Hand Attack).

 

 

Anyone else discover "new" rules when they read Champions Complete?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

I don't know if it's the writing of Champions Complete, or the format, or what, but when I read it, I discovered at least two rules that I either didn't know about or had wrong.

 

1. Followers earn and spend experience points like normal characters. This goes back to at least 4e, but for some reason I always thought that a character improved his Followers by spending his own experience points, at the same 5:1 rate as buying them in the first place. Obviously, I haven't used Followers much.

 

I use both methods. Followers gain exp, but at a lesser rate than P.C.s. Players can also expend their own XP to enhance their followers (spend their own time and effort to train the follower personally) but the follower can never have more Character Points than their lead P.C.

2. Improvised weapons add to your Strength damage if their PD + BODY is greater than your base damage. This rule was introduced in 6e, but I completely missed it until I read Champions Complete. Previously, the only advantage to hitting someone with a chair, tree, or bus was reach or area effect. Now, there's a good reason for a soldier to butt stroke someone with his rifle (without needing to build the rifle with a separate Hand-to-Hand Attack).

 

I have always added a damage bonus when characters pick up objects to use them as an improvised weapon. I do adhere to the DEF+BOD maximum damage dice rule, but I also allow characters to exceed that "maximum" if they want to, the side effect of exceeding the max dice is that the object will break and will no longer be functional as a weapon after that attack. (Metal pipes will bend or snap. Wooden chairs are smashed to splinters, tables crack in two etc)

 

Anyone else discover "new" rules when they read Champions Complete?

 

Haven't read it yet.

[griffinman01]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

2. Improvised weapons add to your Strength damage if their PD + BODY is greater than your base damage. This rule was introduced in 6e, but I completely missed it until I read Champions Complete. Previously, the only advantage to hitting someone with a chair, tree, or bus was reach or area effect. Now, there's a good reason for a soldier to butt stroke someone with his rifle (without needing to build the rifle with a separate Hand-to-Hand Attack).

 

I haven't used Champions Complete or 6e (still use 5th ed revised since that's what I have) but this was something that bugged the hell out of me since anyone can tell you that getting hit with a fist doesn't hurt as much as getting hit with a bottle. I used a house rule that basically added a damage class for each point of DEF the object had and still adhered to the max damage of Def+Body. That way someone could hit a guy with a light pole and have it mean something. Glad they fixed that rule.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

I haven't used Champions Complete or 6e (still use 5th ed revised since that's what I have) but this was something that bugged the hell out of me since anyone can tell you that getting hit with a fist doesn't hurt as much as getting hit with a bottle. I used a house rule that basically added a damage class for each point of DEF the object had and still adhered to the max damage of Def+Body. That way someone could hit a guy with a light pole and have it mean something. Glad they fixed that rule.

 

I filed thus under 'game balance trumps realism', myself.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

I tend to think of it more in the terms of Game Balance squashes Fun.

[griffinman01]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

Yeah, it never seemed to unbalance the game since it took a bit more effort to uproot a lamppost and then swing it at an appropriate target than just punching them. As such I always felt that getting a bit of a damage boost did a good job for encouraging this kind of fun rather than discouraging it by making it do the same damage as something that takes half the time and effort. Lets be honest, who actually used objects as weapons when there was no benefit to doing so? I've always thought that if the Hulk smashed you with a car, then it should do more damage than if he just punched you.

[Grailknight]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

While I do agree with the fun aspect being undercut, I agree with the rule in principle. When the Hulk smashes you with a car it does more damage than being hit by a car not than being hit by the Hulk. The car is not tougher than the Hulk.

[phoenix240]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

It's not particularly "realistic" but I generally ask of the players wants an AE or OCV bonus when using a large object or to try for extra damage. It seems more balanced than giving both. Sometimes a big objection is useful in and off itself for hitting someone out of reach (like a flier) or that has a dangerous Damage Shield type ability.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

I tend to think of it more in the terms of Game Balance squashes Fun.

 

Which is a sentence I, personally, cannot comprehend. For me, no balance means no fun (or, at the very least, means I gotta house-rule something).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

It's not particularly "realistic" but I generally ask of the players wants an AE or OCV bonus when using a large object or to try for extra damage. It seems more balanced than giving both. Sometimes a big objection is useful in and off itself for hitting someone out of reach (like a flier) or that has a dangerous Damage Shield type ability.

 

This. The Improvised Large Weapon thing is for hitting things you can't reach, or that are very evasive, not for boosting your damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

This. The Improvised Large Weapon thing is for hitting things you can't reach' date=' or that are very evasive, not for boosting your damage.[/quote']

 

Except that in the comics, it's often Bricks hammering each other with large objects. They're already fighting HTH, and they have no difficulty hitting each other with fists, so why do they use those large objects?

 

I think part of the problem is that attacking with an object of opportunity tends to have no drawbacks. We don't impose significant OCV (or DCV) penalties, it doesn't take any extra actions, etc. Any bonus with no drawback is a freebie, so if I can get an axtra d6 or 2d6 damage, or range, or AoE, with no down side, why would I not take it?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

Except that in the comics' date=' it's often Bricks hammering each other with large objects. They're already fighting HTH, and they have no difficulty hitting each other with fists, so why do they use those large objects?[/quote']

 

Extra Knockback? Hitting someone with a light pole or a bus ought to get you that much (I'm thinking it's ike a big baseball bat).

[Armitage]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

While I do agree with the fun aspect being undercut' date=' I agree with the rule in principle. When the Hulk smashes you with a car it does more damage than being hit by a car not than being hit by the Hulk. The car is not tougher than the Hulk.[/quote']

 

If we assume that the Hulk has a 70 STR (like Giganto), a typical automobile (3 PD, 15 BODY) would add +2d6. Reasonable if you think of it as using the car like a baseball bat to increase the angular momentum of his swing. After a single blow, the car would be left with 2 BODY (on average), making it useless as a weapon at that point.

 

I think part of the problem is that attacking with an object of opportunity tends to have no drawbacks. We don't impose significant OCV (or DCV) penalties' date=' it doesn't take any extra actions, etc. Any bonus with no drawback is a freebie, so if I can get an axtra d6 or 2d6 damage, or range, or AoE, with no down side, why would I not take it?[/quote']

 

Rocks and telephone poles impose up to a -2 OCV penalty, trees and cars are -2 to -3 OCV, and random rubble and other characters are -4 OCV or more. There are additional penalties if it requires more than Casual STR to lift the object.

If an object is attached to the ground then it isn't an "unresisting object" and would require a Grab maneuver before it could be used as a weapon.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

Except that in the comics' date=' it's often Bricks hammering each other with large objects. They're already fighting HTH, and they have no difficulty hitting each other with fists, so why do they use those large objects?[/quote']

 

Because the writer thinks it would be cool, or make a nice visual, or wants to make a point about the violence inherent in the system, or ...

 

This is one of those things where the basic differences of the media of comics and games comes to light. Gaming can emulate comics, but it can't (and in a lot of cases, shouldn't) try to duplicate it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

Rocks and telephone poles impose up to a -2 OCV penalty, trees and cars are -2 to -3 OCV, and random rubble and other characters are -4 OCV or more. There are additional penalties if it requires more than Casual STR to lift the object.

If an object is attached to the ground then it isn't an "unresisting object" and would require a Grab maneuver before it could be used as a weapon.

 

How many Supers characters are worse off with a -4 OCV penalty that allows their attack to become AoE of even 1 hex, so it targets DCV 3? ANSWER: Very few, if any. As long as the target has a DCV higher than 7, the ability to target a 3 DCV, even with no other benefits, is advantageous. Now, if the "Grab first, then wield weapon of opportunity" and the "weapon takes damage from each hit" rules are actually enforced (which includes not having a near-endless supply of replacement weapons), there's at least some balancing factor.

 

One approach to balancing weapons of opportunity would reduce the AoE aspect to Selective, and/or convert it to an OCV bonus based on the size of the object (one of the options presented in 6e v2 - odd that the possibility of Selective AoE, rather than "he can dodge", isn't considered). The lamppost is a good example. Sure, it's several meters long and can logically hit multiple targets. But what prevents the agile Martial Artist nimbly ducking or leaping over the swinging lamppost? Lots of Blasts have SFX that fill at least as much of the target hex, and they don't target a 3 DCV - there's no reason the lamppost should either.

 

If the character picks up a well-balanced, aerodynamic sword, he takes a -3 OCV penalty because he is not proficient with the sword. Maybe non-proficiency penalties should apply to improvised weapons that deviate from a simple club or thrown rock? You want the extra advantages, you take the extra drawbacks.

 

Because the writer thinks it would be cool, or make a nice visual, or wants to make a point about the violence inherent in the system, or ...

 

This is one of those things where the basic differences of the media of comics and games comes to light. Gaming can emulate comics, but it can't (and in a lot of cases, shouldn't) try to duplicate it.

 

I think emulation is enhanced when there is a reason to use classic tropes of the genre, and weakened when these tropes become disadvantageous rather than advantageous. Why not decide that, well, the ability to fly and the wearing of cloaks is fine for the comics, but I don't believe a man can fly (so leave that out of the game) and enemies get an OCV bonus if they Grab a target's Cloak, so that's an easy way to gain a combat advantage. After all, we don't need to duplicate those aspects of the comics.

 

Extreme examples, certainly, but are cloaks and flying men more common than high STR characters using objects of opportunity to attack? I don't think so. As such, I'd like the game to support all three of these things, common in the genre. Flight carries advantages (and costs points, and risks greater knockback). cloaks are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged, so they're at least not discouraged. But there must be some reason for taking the time (and possible OCV penalties) to use an object as a weapon rather than just a punch or a kick, if that trope is to carry through to the game.

 

Some tropes will never translate well, but I think the game should aim to emulate tropes in favour of discarding them wherever possible.

[psyber624]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

I always looked at the whole using cars/trucks/trees/lampposts as weapons thing as "Brick Tricks" and if someone wanted to add a bunch of extra DC using it he would buy the power normally (such as +4 DC HA) and apply a limitation "OAF (Appropriate Objects of Opportunity) -1". He gets a good discount on doing damage like that and while he can be disarmed its always easy to find another one. This also preserves balance and if you want to build a brick would be incredibly "genre appropriate" for him to have such an ability.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

There are reasons to use a random brawling weapon; you can throw it to hit distant targets, or you can use a big one to hit elusive targets.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

There are reasons to use a random brawling weapon; you can throw it to hit distant targets' date=' or you can use a big one to hit elusive targets.[/quote']

 

But that still doesn't explaoin why the Hulk and the Thing, pounding it out toe to toe, smash each other with large objects rather than just pummelling with their fists.

[Greywind]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

Or why Hulk ripped a car in two and used it as boxing gloves beating on the Abomination.

[Kirby]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

But that still doesn't explaoin why the Hulk and the Thing' date=' pounding it out toe to toe, smash each other with large objects rather than just pummelling with their fists.[/quote']

So they don't scrape their knuckles.

 

On a more "serious" note, there are two reasons:

1) Dramatic effect. It looks cool/awesome/superhuman/et cetera to use a large object (tree, street light, automobile) When you make the comic or cartoon, you get to choose. You aren't required to explain it. There's a psychological effect of using something that would destroy us mere mortals (automobile) if hit by it and yet the recipient survives. Besides, if the competition is doing it, you need to do it too or do it better.

 

2) Somewhere there's a bonus. Why hit someone with a stick when you can use your fists? Longer reach, perhaps, or maybe the extra oomph. The speed of the far end of the stick is greater than the speed at the near part of the stick (where your hand is), thus there's more force. If you swing a baseball bat using both hands, you're giving up some leverage (DCV, use of both hands) for a solid whack.

 

But then when you think about it...

 

What good is hitting Superman with a tree when missiles don't hurt him? "Logically," this shouldn't, but comic after comic and cartoon after cartoon show us that he keeps getting knocked down (but he gets up again; you're never gonna keep him down).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

But that still doesn't explaoin why the Hulk and the Thing' date=' pounding it out toe to toe, smash each other with large objects rather than just pummelling with their fists.[/quote']

I always thought it was for the free AoE.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

 

So they don't scrape their knuckles.

 

On a more "serious" note, there are two reasons:

1) Dramatic effect. It looks cool/awesome/superhuman/et cetera to use a large object (tree, street light, automobile) When you make the comic or cartoon, you get to choose. You aren't required to explain it. There's a psychological effect of using something that would destroy us mere mortals (automobile) if hit by it and yet the recipient survives. Besides, if the competition is doing it, you need to do it too or do it better.

 

Would that motivate a player to take this action? If not, why should it motivate anyone else? It happens too universally to be a character or two valuing "cool" over "effective", especially when its use increases in the toughest fights.

 

 

2) Somewhere there's a bonus. Why hit someone with a stick when you can use your fists? Longer reach' date=' perhaps, or maybe the extra [i']oomph[/i]. The speed of the far end of the stick is greater than the speed at the near part of the stick (where your hand is), thus there's more force. If you swing a baseball bat using both hands, you're giving up some leverage (DCV, use of both hands) for a solid whack.

 

This is the more logical aspect - there must be some reason, mechanically, to do this. It can't logically be range - they're already fighting HTH. It doesn't seem like it improves the odds of hitting - they're having no difficulty hitting with their fists. They are, however, having a tough time taking the target down, so doing more damage seems the most likely reason.

 

 

But then when you think about it...

 

What good is hitting Superman with a tree when missiles don't hurt him? "Logically," this shouldn't, but comic after comic and cartoon after cartoon show us that he keeps getting knocked down (but he gets up again; you're never gonna keep him down).

 

Here we get to the limitations of using the object as a weapon. With the damage bonus being available only if the object's combined DEF + BOD exceeds your STR DC's, a large tree has 5 PD + 11 BOD = 18. A 75+ STR attacker will gain no damage bonus from using a tree (STR over 80 loses damage). How strong must an attacker be to be a credible foe for Superman? If he has, say, a 60 STR, so he could get a 3d6 damage bonus from a large tree, maybe it's worth the phase it would take to grab and uproot it before attacking. Is it worthwhile for a 1d6 bonus?

 

 

I always thought it was for the free AoE.

 

Except that the agile opponents tend to avoid those big objects, indicating AoE is too generous compared to the source material. I lean to using the object size as either an OCV bonus or a non-selective AoE. You can attack more targets, but they keep their DCV. Low DCV characters get slammed by the thrown bus. High DEC characters nimbly avoid it, or even dive through a window on one side and out the other. But, again, if you need a 5- to hit, and the bus adds a +8 or +10 OCV bonus, that helps a lot! I'd gut feel a +6 - the bus is very large, but the section the target must avoid is somewhat smaller (ie he can dodge its width rather than its length). Any large object completely negating the target's DCV is excessive, in my view.

[Greywind]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

 

Except that the agile opponents tend to avoid those big objects' date='[/quote']Or in the case of Spider-Man, where he sticks to the large object his opponent is trying to hit him with until they start wondering where he went.

[gojira]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

 

Would that motivate a player to take this action? If not, why should it motivate anyone else? It happens too universally to be a character or two valuing "cool" over "effective", especially when its use increases in the toughest fights.

 

 

It's starting to sound to me like a genre convention, rather than a universal or absolute rule.

 

I've been thinking about this a bit since the Fantasy Hero Complete thread was posted. I wonder if perhaps the downfall of generic universal systems is that they are generic and universal. These types of systems (Hero, GURPS) always seem to produce a muddle for at least a few genres. And they also seem to produce too much complexity as they try to have a rule for every situation, for every genre.

 

I think you have to be careful how good you make improvised weapons, otherwise you'll have everyone fighting with chairs and tables and tavern mugs instead of swords and knives and guns. And a superheroic list of improvised weapons ought to be different than one designed for tavern brawls in a swords and sorcery campaign. Those two genres don't overlap with regards to special effect, or desired outcome or bonuses. They're two different things entirely, with very little overlap wrt improvised weapons.

 

So I'd just make a "bricks tricks" table and say every one has access to it. Make the objects large enough so that only folks with super-strength are incented to use it. I think the base system should have one simple rule for improvised weapons (which it does, I believe) but that shouldn't stop you from coming up with more ideas for a particular game. However, it should stop you from thinking that *all* genres should be using the exact same table of improvised weapons.

[Rhino]

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

 

It could be ruled as just the sfx of using a haymaker.