Chewing (up) the scenery

[JasonPacker]

So, I'm not in love with the system presented in 6E2 for dealing with damage to inanimate objects. They're assigned a PD and ED, and a BODY score, which makes sense in the broadest way. What they don't do is work seamlessly with the power levels in even modest hero-level play without the in-built GM fudge rule - if it doesn't make sense, don't allow it. Don't let a guy karate chop open a safe. Don't let a single bullet open a man-sized hole in even a flimsy interior door.

 

Has anyone done anything with this to adapt the rules to more accurately reflect how inanimate objects might behave? Perhaps something whereby objects were assigned advantages based on construction - both material and relative dimensions ("thickness")? 

 

I'm toying with the notion of assigning Damage Reduction - either Normal or Resistant depending on the material or construction of the object. That would deal with the offensive-striking through an iron portcullis, but I'm not sure about the shooting your revolver at the same iron bars...

 

So, anyone got any ideas on this? Tried out something that worked well for you? Had something you tried blow up in your face? Interested in seeing what I come up with?

[Christopher]

That bullets only cause small holes is part of the "Beam" Limitation they are usualyl built with.

Hitting an iron bar with a bullet might be a problem of proper aim more then damage.

 

Note that object Hardnesses as shown in 6E2 seem to high for superheroic games. Like the weapons in that book they seem to be geared towards Heroic games.

In superheroic worlds a 60 STR brick should be able to rip the door from a safe (they do it often enough in source material). And punch through walls.

 

About "proper drability for large obejcts", the APG II 113 has some rules about destructability of really large objects - Planets. And how to destroy them.

[Lucius]

 

I've simply never noticed this problem.

 

I've always assumed that one of the reasons Martial Arts are cheap is that there is an "implied Limitation" that they can't be used to kick down buildings, etc. Bullets have the "Beam" Limitation, and most weapons, from knives to crossbows to machine guns, have a "Real Weapon" Limitation that keeps them from doing things like blow a human size hole in a wall with one lucky bullet.

 

As for superheroes "chewing up the scenery" in my opinion some things are if anything made TOO durable and the weapons may be TOO effective for superhero play - a superhero or supervillain is SUPPOSED to be able to pick up and shred a tank while shrugging off its weapons fire.

 

Which is not to say you shouldn't use any rules you wish to create the "look and feel" you prefer. Assume metal objects are automatically Hardened and Impenetrable, give structures and furniture a few levels of Damage Negation perhaps.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Give the palindromedary 100% Damage Reduction.....

[JasonPacker]

Okay, this has been fantastic. I had very limited memory of what Beam and Real Weapon did as limitations - I remembered the no spread, must use a full power, but not the narrow damage interpretation for Beam, and the maintenance issues of Real Weapon, but not the damage limitations. 

 

Martial Arts (and all unarmed attacks) just need that same limitation to be assumed, and I should be good to go.

 

I will admit, I had hoped for a more "mechanically pure" means, akin to what GURPS does with making objects Diffuse or Homogenous. But this is at least a step in the right direction to a more legitimate reason than book-defined GM fiat.

[Christopher]

Martial Arts (and all unarmed attacks) just need that same limitation to be assumed, and I should be good to go.

For all intents Martial Arts is "Extra STR, 0 END" and OCV/DCV with Limitations. You could even see it as an offshoot of CSL.

I think it is even spelle out somewhere and I have used "STR, 0 End, Only what Martial Arts can do (-1/4)" with the asumption it could not break down walls.

 

As for superheroes "chewing up the scenery" in my opinion some things are if anything made TOO durable and the weapons may be TOO effective for superhero play - a superhero or supervillain is SUPPOSED to be able to pick up and shred a tank while shrugging off its weapons fire.

As I said above, those values seem to be made for heroic games, nothing else.

Even the example superheroic foes completely ignore the weapons tables and pick something more in line with thier Power Level.

[JasonPacker]

For all intents Martial Arts is "Extra STR, 0 END" and OCV/DCV with Limitations. You could even see it as an offshoot of CSL.

I think it is even spelle out somewhere and I have used "STR, 0 End, Only what Martial Arts can do (-1/4)" with the asumption it could not break down walls.

 

Perhaps a similar -1/4 limitation to Beam and Real Weapon, something like "Unarmed Attack" with the implications that it can be leveraged as part of the suite of Martial Arts maneuvers, but as it is hands and feet there are implied limitations to the effects on inanimate objects beyond a certain sturdiness of construction.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I chew up scenery as necessary for dramatic effect. i never count the defense and body of mundane objects unless it is important to do so within the context of the story.

 

When superheroes throw each other into walls, the walls usually at least crack significantly. if a STRONG super throws somene into a wall, they will go through the wall. same with knockback for attacks (if the attack is stronger than 12DC then i usually have the kb blast people through the wall)

[Greywind]

Yeah, but what about the wall studs?

[mallet]

"Don't let a guy karate chop open a safe. 

 

Has anyone done anything with this to adapt the rules to more accurately reflect how inanimate objects might behave? Perhaps something whereby objects were assigned advantages based on construction - both material and relative dimensions ("thickness")? "

 

 

 

Well, if you are going for realism you could make the character take damage from attacking inanimate objects with a fist or foot if he doesn't destroy it in his first attack. 

So if a a guy punches a safe to try and open it and he only does 5 BODY damage and needed 9 to destroy it, then he takes 5 BODY damage to his hand (minus any resistant protection). Harsh, but a bit more realistic.

If you want to get really realistic then the character should take equal damage to his hand/foot (minus his own PD & rPD) to what he does against the object during his attack.

 

I remember back in high school this giant football meathead got angry one time after losing a game and punched a locker. He put a big dent in it, but he also broke a few bones in his hand and had to miss the next two months of games. 

[Christopher]

 

 

Well, if you are going for realism you could make the character take damage from attacking inanimate objects with a fist or foot if he doesn't destroy it in his first attack. 

So if a a guy punches a safe to try and open it and he only does 5 BODY damage and needed 9 to destroy it, then he takes 5 BODY damage to his hand (minus any resistant protection). Harsh, but a bit more realistic.

If you want to get really realistic then the character should take equal damage to his hand/foot (minus his own PD & rPD) to what he does against the object during his attack.

 

I remember back in high school this giant football meathead got angry one time after losing a game and punched a locker. He put a big dent in it, but he also broke a few bones in his hand and had to miss the next two months of games. 

 

We could adapt the "breaking point" Rles for Improvised Weapons:

The weapon always takes full damage.

The weapon cannot do more then it's PD+BODY in DC, no mater where those DC come from.

 

I think there were rules about loosing arms/legs and so forth somewhere. You could adapt them to figure out how much BODY a had has for that calcualtion.

[JasonPacker]

I definitely like the idea of a system that better models what really happens with the mechanics, instead of with exceptions that place the decision in the hands of GM fiat. 

 

It would need rules for how specific damage types interact with different material types, how much damage is the maximum that can be inflicted by a type of attack (the rest blowing through or otherwise not being effective) and what happens to folks on the other side of that inanimate object - how much is the damage reduced.

 

A single, consistent system would be ideal.

[DasBroot]

What kind of DC are being thrown around that can karate chop a safe open?  A bullet proof safe has a pd of 13 and a 6 body.  To put a hole in it, not flat out destroy it, it in a single chop a character would need 16 body on an attack. Un-advantaged that's at least an 8 DC attack, with a 16 being need to do reliably at will (your standard 12 dc of pure dice in a superheroic game MIGHT: If anything certain mundane objects are 'too' tough in superheroic games - that's why the bend metal with his bare hands optional rule is there).

 

If someone has that level of attack, regardless of source, why shouldn't they be able to break down metal bars or tear open a safe? Whether you got to that DC through skill levels, hth attack dice, or pure strength it's all the same mechanically speaking.  It should be - it all costs nearly the same (straight strength is slightly more expensive, but affects throw distance and lift ability so that's fair).  

 

In a heroic game nobody has the points free for that kind of attack level, even if the GM doesn't put a DC cap in place.  In a superheroic game all bets should be off.  I'd suggest to my players 'real weapon' or 'beam' as a limitation (who doesn't like cheaper powers) if punching man sized holes through brick walls breaks their theme, or the campaigns, but I wouldn't tinker with anything mechanically.

 

(At least, I wouldn't tinker with MUCH. I do find the object PD/ED to be a little low in some cases and a little high in others, so I do adjust  for flavor - using the weapon damage table as a common sense grounding point.  Is the object 'bullet proof'? Guns do up to 2d6 body, so if yes adjust the value to 12. Etc)

 

My problem with objects comes with the body scores on large objects more than anything else.  30 body on an aircraft carrier? Mechanically that's a fair number - a few missiles (5d6 ap killing) vs it's 19 PD and 30 body will sink it, like in 'real life'.  Thematically it just feels wrong - most of the supervillains in my game have more body than that (they need to in order to avoid being reduced to -body from several 12DC attacks in the first segment 12 round).

[JasonPacker]

A skilled Bando practitioner does a kick (offensive strike), at STR 15, with 2 extra DCs bought in his martial art for 9d6 N. Same STR 15 guy haymakers a blow with a battleaxe (base damage 2d6 K) for 3d6+1 K. With a Great Pick, he gets only 2d6+1 K, but Armor Piercing - so maybe that's good if the safe is Hardened, but irrelevant to the axe.

 

Neither one should cause a bullet-proof safe a bit of worry, but both could, with just a little luck, whittle it away with no negative impacts to the attacker (though there are optional rules for damage to weapons that ought to apply, and ought to apply to people hitting hard things as well).

[DasBroot]

"Should" or "Shouldn't" is entirely campaign specific, and easily rectified in this case by changing the underlying PD of objects to reflect what a gm feels characters are capable of.  In theory a game could be run where people throw 40d6 punches around, but if it's not a scenery demolishing friendly themed game 40d6  doesn't even have to be enough damage to break a wood door.  It's GM fudge, but a minimal one that only becomes problematic when the story calls for a door to be broken down.

 

In a heroic game I'd probably put a 9 DC cap in place.  With said cap in place that safe is ... well... safe... at a PD of 19.  That's higher than the 'vault door' of 16, but not dramatically so (I'd probably just add 3 pd to all reinforced objects, like doors, in said game), and still perfectly destructible by plot provided devices like dynamite.

 

I do like the idea of damage to weapons inflicting damage to characters hitting hard things in a heroic game, though. "Argh, my hand" is a perfectly logical outcome to trying to punch a brick wall,

 

(edit: and I had forgotten about haymaker, to be honest.  I dislike it and try to block it out. )

[Christopher]

My problem with objects comes with the body scores on large objects more than anything else.  30 body on an aircraft carrier? Mechanically that's a fair number - a few missiles (5d6 ap killing) vs it's 19 PD and 30 body will sink it, like in 'real life'.  Thematically it just feels wrong - most of the supervillains in my game have more body than that (they need to in order to avoid being reduced to -body from several 12DC attacks in the first segment 12 round).

You should consider Damage Reduction. Allowing a Single Vilain to survive the attacks of a group of heroes (without being stunned) is one of the primary purposes of it.

 

And a again: Weapons, Obstacle Durability, Armor and Vehicles in 6E2 are clearly geared towards a heroic game. They are not suiteable for superheroic games.

All the example foes in Champions 6E for example use OAF, Beam and Charges only for thier Firearms. And OAF only for thier Bladed Weapons. No real Weapon, STR MIn or any of the other Limitations used for the Equipment Lists in 6E2 anywhere.

[JasonPacker]

"Should" or "Shouldn't" is entirely campaign specific, and easily rectified in this case by changing the underlying PD of objects to reflect what a gm feels characters are capable of.  In theory a game could be run where people throw 40d6 punches around, but if it's not a scenery demolishing friendly themed game 40d6  doesn't even have to be enough damage to break a wood door.  It's GM fudge, but a minimal one that only becomes problematic when the story calls for a door to be broken down.

 

In a heroic game I'd probably put a 9 DC cap in place.  With said cap in place that safe is ... well... safe... at a PD of 19.  That's higher than the 'vault door' of 16, but not dramatically so (I'd probably just add 3 pd to all reinforced objects, like doors, in said game), and still perfectly destructible by plot provided devices like dynamite.

 

I do like the idea of damage to weapons inflicting damage to characters hitting hard things in a heroic game, though. "Argh, my hand" is a perfectly logical outcome to trying to punch a brick wall,

 

(edit: and I had forgotten about haymaker, to be honest.  I dislike it and try to block it out. )

Yeah, I'm falling out of love with haymaker in general. I think that extra effort and time ought to be represented by a maneuver, but not by adding damage classes necessarily.

 

And I'll give you that "should" is variable. So, for the sake of argument, I'm looking at realistic attacks in a realistic setting.

[JasonPacker]

And a again: Weapons, Obstacle Durability, Armor and Vehicles in 6E2 are clearly geared towards a heroic game. They are not suiteable for superheroic games.

All the example foes in Champions 6E for example use OAF, Beam and Charges only for thier Firearms. And OAF only for thier Bladed Weapons. No real Weapon, STR MIn or any of the other Limitations used for the Equipment Lists in 6E2 anywhere.

And yet, even in a heroic game they fall to a GM Fiat style of rule (beam, real weapon, etc) instead of just having a system that's internally consistent enough not to need sweeping exceptions. That'd be my goal - an attack/defense/damage system that remains consistent across as many variables as possible. 

[DasBroot]

What about an optional Heroic rule similar in theme to the "Bend steel with his bare hands!" that instead doubles the PD/ED of objects to attacks without an appropriate tool? Call it "Bend bars with your bare hands?".

 

If GMs find a 9d6 to 12d6 attack is easy to get even in heroic this would serve to preserve the theme - a brick wall goes from PD 5 (9d6 chips away at it easily) to 10 (9d6 will still break it eventually, but it's a lot harder).  The typical vault/safe goes to 26+ PD - there's no way anyone is breaking into it with their bare hands in a heroic game without a proper tool/special effect. (the PD would remain where it is in such a case (ie: 5d6 killing Dynamite still blows a hole in the body 6 pd 13 safe.)

[Christopher]

Yeah, I'm falling out of love with haymaker in general. I think that extra effort and time ought to be represented by a maneuver, but not by adding damage classes necessarily.

 

And I'll give you that "should" is variable. So, for the sake of argument, I'm looking at realistic attacks in a realistic setting.

Haymaker is a Maneuver, that simulates "taking extra time and effort".

And since it is a maneuver you cannot combine Haymaker with Martial Arts (wich is a collection of Maneuvers).

[JasonPacker]

Haymaker is a Maneuver, that simulates "taking extra time and effort".

And since it is a maneuver you cannot combine Haymaker with Martial Arts (wich is a collection of Maneuvers).

I think I must have been misunderstood. I agree with all of that, I just don't think it's the best way to model either extra time or extra effort. More damage makes some sense for extra effort, but should probably be modeled with Pushing, not with a maneuver. Extra time shouldn't impact the damage your attack packs, but the effect of that hit - by reducing the penalties for hit location for example to allow you to land a blow in a x2 Stun location (for normal damage) or a high stun/body multiplier location (for killing) instead.

[Vanguard]

And yet, even in a heroic game they fall to a GM Fiat style of rule (beam, real weapon, etc) instead of just having a system that's internally consistent enough not to need sweeping exceptions. That'd be my goal - an attack/defense/damage system that remains consistent across as many variables as possible. 

 

Those limitations aren't "GM fiat" rules.  At least I don't believe they are.

 

They're there for the exact reason you're claiming.  If, for example,  you put "real weapon: on a power/attack (IE: gun) then that weapon can only do something the "real world" equivalent could do.

 

I'm not exactly seeing a problem here.

[JasonPacker]

Those limitations aren't "GM fiat" rules.  At least I don't believe they are.

 

They're there for the exact reason you're claiming.  If, for example,  you put "real weapon: on a power/attack (IE: gun) then that weapon can only do something the "real world" equivalent could do.

 

I'm not exactly seeing a problem here.

 

The problem is entirely mine - and it's that the rules are qualitative, "You can't blow a man-sized hole in a door or wall with a single bullet; you can't open a safe with a karate chop" rather than quantitative, for example "objects with the classification of <X> take 1/5 damage from normal attacks, and cause damage to the objects doing the damage. Their PD is doubled against most killing attacks, but halved against attacks that <have some special feature>. Objects with classification <Y> can take no more than 1/5 of their BODY in damage from a single attack that has Beam as a limitation, with the rest of the damage passing through, possibly injuring other objects or people behind."

[Lucius]

So, you're saying you wish Hero were more complicated?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to introduce you to Schiller, Escher, and Bach

[JasonPacker]

So, you're saying you wish Hero were more complicated?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to introduce you to Schiller, Escher, and Bach

 

I can see where it might seem that way - but I prefer to think of as being more detailed. 

[Christopher]

I can see where it might seem that way - but I prefer to think of as being more detailed. 

More detailed is more complicated.

More then one Ruleset version made the msitake of going over-detailed, trying to cover every last rarely used case.

 

That Beam cannot bring down a Barrier is already in the Rule. And isn't a set of iron bars not a barrier*?

That Martial Arts has limitations is also clearly written down.

 

 

*You can certainly make a set of Iron Bars using the barrier Power with Limitations.