Levitation?

[Doc Democracy]

Hell Cantriped, you have just convinced me that I am never gonna revisit acceleration and deceleration again...or use it in my games.

 

The non-combat bit was the absolute kicker. It will cost me twice as much to use my non-combat movement as part of the acceleration calculations. I might as well simply purchase twice as much flight (and have even greater non-combat). Even should I simply want better acceleration, I am better urchasing flight limited (only for acceleration/deceleration), I think I might be tempted to give that a+1 or better limitation considering the value I reckon it would have in gameplay...

 

Something for the next edition to consider I think...

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree, the acel/decel rules and mods don't quite do what people expect and are more complicated than they probably need to be.  Some streamlining and making things work more like the source material rather than trying to emulate physics would fit the rest of the game rules better, I think.

[Cantriped]

Hell Cantriped, you have just convinced me that I am never gonna revisit acceleration and deceleration again...or use it in my games.

 

The non-combat bit was the absolute kicker. It will cost me twice as much to use my non-combat movement as part of the acceleration calculations. I might as well simply purchase twice as much flight (and have even greater non-combat). Even should I simply want better acceleration, I am better urchasing flight limited (only for acceleration/deceleration), I think I might be tempted to give that a+1 or better limitation considering the value I reckon it would have in gameplay...

 

Something for the next edition to consider I think...

Well obviously that wasn't my goal, I use the acceleration, deceleration and gravity rules in my games as written... However, like I said in the other thread; in practice they almost never actually come up. It is just important to know how they work for those few occasions that they do (namely falling and velocity based maneuvers). Naturally in your campaigns you have the right to make that call for yourselves though; toolkitting is one of the core principles of the system.

 

In my opinion, those rules exist in part to prevent people from pulling off cheesy shit too cheaply... Like buying 1m of Flight just to be able to decelerate from Terminal Velocity in 1 Phase for 1 END and 1 CP. And in part to balance how cheap Movement Powers are (and especially how cheap Noncombat Velocity is). But they also exist to represent the cinematic reality that almost nobody can accelerate straight to their full speed, nor can they simply stop on a dime once they do. The notable exception is the Road Runner, Whose Running has Noncombat Acceleration/Deceleration and a high Noncombat Multiplier. But most of the other example of Fast characters I can think of follow the general rule.

[Ninja-Bear]

Thought of this yesterday. +50 PD only vs velocity damage -2 . Or if you like can add RSR breakfall.

[Cantriped]

Going the Defense Route:

You need 30 PD to be immune to the average BODY Damage, and 60 PD to be immune to the maximum BODY Damage, of a Terminal Velocity Fall.

You need 105 PD to be immune to the average STUN Damage, and 180 PD to be immune to the maximum STUN Damage, of a Terminal Velocity Fall.

So between 10 and 60 CP if you place Only Against Velocity Damage (-2) on said defenses.

[Doc Democracy]

Yeah but we are talking superheroes here. We can presume around 20PD already there.

 

I think among superheroes we will average above the maximum BODY and therefore meet the key requirement of staying alive from a terminal velocity fall. With about 70PD against the STUN you are looking at 35 STUN on average and can expect to be stunned and potentially knocked out.

 

All in all a reasonable outcome from falling so far.... :-)

[Ninja-Bear]

Hey you can also add +20 Body only vs velocity damage rather cheap and or add damage negation too with 6th.

 

My point is that with Hero system, you can usually work around any rules problems however time you're done, its usually easier to bend the rules rather than keep a strict rules interpretation.

[Ninja-Bear]

Going the Defense Route:

You need 30 PD to be immune to the average BODY Damage, and 60 PD to be immune to the maximum BODY Damage, of a Terminal Velocity Fall.

You need 105 PD to be immune to the average STUN Damage, and 180 PD to be immune to the maximum STUN Damage, of a Terminal Velocity Fall.

So between 10 and 60 CP if you place Only Against Velocity Damage (-2) on said defenses.

[Ninja-Bear]

Fwiw I pulled + 50 out of thin air and I was only thinking of defense of Body.

 

Oh yeah some where there was a ruling about Leaping. If you had enough (not sure of the exact amount right now) then you didn't have to worry about falling damage. Your leap took care of it.

[Ninja-Bear]

Cantriped I get the part about trying to avoid chesy builds. I really do. The problem with Hero system is that by its nature you have potential all the time. Aaron Allston points out in Champions sourcebook on how sometimes legal builds can overly powerful in play but not seem it when built. And I believe this where we got 6th ed. 2 books. Some people wanted every little minor question laid out and answered. I use to be like that, now not so much. Part of it is that I've seem that no rule system can cover everthing and some rules need to be changed. For example kmock down on FHC I love! It is a whole lot easier than 5th ed! Also (and I would encourage any 4th ed user to use) the order in which Blocks are resolved. It makes gaming a little faster.

 

Btw Cantriped let me apologize if I came accross attacking you. There is nothing wrong going by the book however ime it sometimes needs tempered.

 

And the way gravity is presented in FHC really surprised me!

[Cantriped]

Oh yeah some where there was a ruling about Leaping. If you had enough (not sure of the exact amount right now) then you didn't have to worry about falling damage. Your leap took care of it.

I vaguely recall that clause as well, but I don't remember where I found it (it isn't in CC/FHC). But the gist IIRC is that you can Hold An Action (or Abort) to Activate Leaping at the moment of Impact to Decelerate; effectively subtracting your meters of Leaping from your Falling Velocity. So Leaping 60m (30 APs) made you practically immune to Falling Damage (deceleration doesn't have a gravity penalty so you use your "horizontal leap" distance).

 

Cantriped I get the part about trying to avoid chesy builds. I really do. The problem with Hero system is that by its nature you have potential all the time. Aaron Allston points out in Champions sourcebook on how sometimes legal builds can overly powerful in play but not seem it when built...

Btw Cantriped let me apologize if I came accross attacking you. There is nothing wrong going by the book however ime it sometimes needs tempered.

Don't worry, you've never offended me. I just hold very strong opinions and argue them fervently.

In practice I'm not nearly the Rules Nazi I come across as here on the boards. I am to make house rules when I am GMing, and suggest them when it is appropriate to the discussion. However, when I am participating in a rules discussion I prefer to give suggestions which are legal with the rules as written because players sometimes post to these boards looking for advise as well, and just because I say a house rule is reasonable doesn't mean another GM will agree. I also think it is very important to make house rules from a position of firm understanding of the rules as written.

[Ninja-Bear]

I vaguely recall that clause as well, but I don't remember where I found it (it isn't in CC/FHC). But the gist IIRC is that you can Hold An Action (or Abort) to Activate Leaping at the moment of Impact to Decelerate; effectively subtracting your meters of Leaping from your Falling Velocity. So Leaping 60m (30 APs) made you practically immune to Falling Damage (deceleration doesn't have a gravity penalty so you use your "horizontal leap" distance).

 

Don't worry, you've never offended me. I just hold very strong opinions and argue them fervently.

In practice I'm not nearly the Rules Nazi I come across as here on the boards. I am to make house rules when I am GMing, and suggest them when it is appropriate to the discussion. However, when I am participating in a rules discussion I prefer to give suggestions which are legal with the rules as written because players sometimes post to these boards looking for advise as well, and just because I say a house rule is reasonable doesn't mean another GM will agree. I also think it is very important to make house rules from a position of firm understanding of the rules as written.

I agree with that!