Crashing Through Plate Glass

[dsatow]

I'm not sure what makes you erroneously think otherwise, but Steve's answer quoted above blatantly contradicts the RAW in multiple editions he had a hand in writing (aka both 5th and 6th edition), as well as both CC and FHC (see 5eR 449, 6e2 172, CC 142, or FHC 167).

 

If Objects could not have 0 BODY, than the Object BODY Tables in both 5th and 6th edition would have listed "1 BODY" for objects weighing 800g or less and complex objects weighing 3.2kg or less. However it does not, it lists "0 BODY" for all eight of these entries in both documents. There is also no rules text supporting the assertion that Objects must have at least 1 BODY in 5th or 6th editions (that I've found). However, there is rules text in CC/FHC explicitly stating that the minimum BODY score for Objects is 0 (CC 142; FHC 167).

Likewise, if Walls could not have 0 BODY the Wall BODY Tables in both 5th and 6th editions would have listed "1 BODY" for Stone 16mm thick or less and wood 4mm thick or less. However it does not, it lists "---" for all four of these entries in all four documents.

 

Steve Long (circa 2017) is incorrect according to Steve Long (circa 2004 and 2009).

 

First off, Steve never quotes rules as noted in CC or FHC.  He states he's not the author of those documents and they are effectively different rule sets from his point of view and says to talk to the author of that document.

 

Object Body Table only quotes the body for an object based on mass.  Per the rules, these are a starting guideline for the GM.  3.2KG of titanium or steel in a block is not going to have 0 Body.

 

As for walls, it does not note 0 Body but has a hyphen.  Its possible that a number isn't recorded there because structurally there aren't walls of that thickness.  A 4mm wooden wall is about 1/8 of an inch thick.  A 32mm stone would be about 1/2" thick.  Personally I have never seen walls this thin made of those materials.  

[Cantriped]

I used CC/FHC only as supplemental evidence, because the rules for determining object BODY by mass presented in them were derived from and match the table presented in both 5th and 6th edition exactly. I agree with Steve that CC & FHC are effectively their own rulesets, being '6th edition' in name only.

 

Steve never quoted any rules from 6th edition in his answer, nor can I imagine that he would be able to find any that support his opinion. By the way, the table we are referring to lists a Grenade as an example of an object which would have 0 BODY. According to Wikipedia, the iconic pineapple-shaped fragmentation grenades were made from cast-iron. So obviously material doesn't make that much of a difference when determining BODY except as it relates to the potential mass of an object of a given size.

[Cantriped]

Regarding walls, I never said that it did say "0 BODY", I said that 0 BODY was implied by the progression of the table and that I wasn't sure what else "---" was supposed to mean. You are correct that "---" may have been intended to indicate that you cannot make a wall from those materials that thin.

However, I do not think it is true that you cannot make walls that thin from those materials (or that you've never seen one either).

Having seen the materials used in architecture students during collage, I have personally seen sheets of wood less than 1/8", likewise I've personally seen brick façade tiles less than 1/4" thick. Let me tell you those things were flimsy. Appropriately supported you can make a "wall" out of them, but that wall isn't keeping anything out. A stiff breeze might break it. Furthermore, for lack of a more accurate category, I would consider a pane of glass to be an exceptionally thin stone wall (that just happened to be transparent). Similarly I would consider a paper wall to functionally be equivalent to an exceptionally thin wooden wall. Meaning it is entirely possible to have a wall in the "---" range of those materials. Going by mass, glass will probably still have at least 1 BODY, but a paper wall might not.

[dsatow]

 By the way, the table we are referring to lists a Grenade as an example of an object which would have 0 BODY. According to Wikipedia, the iconic pineapple-shaped fragmentation grenades were made from cast-iron. So obviously material doesn't make that much of a difference when determining BODY except as it relates to the potential mass of an object of a given size.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the grenade.  The example of grenade isn't an indication of BODY but rather of weight.  If you compare the 5th edition Strength table on pg34 with the 6th edition table on pg172, you will see what I mean.  Besides which, why would a load or unloaded ship(examples destroyer and freighter)  have more body?  Would a small car get more body if 4 clowns are in it compared to 1?

[dsatow]

However, I do not think it is true that you cannot make walls that thin from those materials (or that you've never seen one either).

Having seen the materials used in architecture students during collage, I have personally seen sheets of wood less than 1/8", likewise I've personally seen brick façade tiles less than 1/4" thick. Let me tell you those things were flimsy. Appropriately supported you can make a "wall" out of them, but that wall isn't keeping anything out. A stiff breeze might break it. Furthermore, for lack of a more accurate category, I would consider a pane of glass to be an exceptionally thin stone wall (that just happened to be transparent). Similarly I would consider a paper wall to functionally be equivalent to an exceptionally thin wooden wall. Meaning it is entirely possible to have a wall in the "---" range of those materials. Going by mass, glass will probably still have at least 1 BODY, but a paper wall might not.

 

The key here is appropriately supported.  If a brick facade is less than 1/4" and makes a wall by itself, ok.  But if its covering a concrete backing, then even with the brick facade, its a concrete wall.

 

The paper walls in Japan are not completely made out of paper.  They are framed in wood, 1/4" thick.  I have seen screens made of paper, but not a wall to separate room sections.

[DasBroot]

I think I'd give even a paper wall 1 body.  People (8 str) do 1 1/2 d6 damage when they try - that's enough to knock a hole in a 1 body wall unless they roll minimum (which makes sense - you swung at it and grazed it instead of hitting it). 

[Cantriped]

Well according to his answer to the question I posted yesterday; Steve Long agrees with ya'll that the "---" on the Wall table was probably intended to mean you 'couldn't have a wall that thin of those materials'. However he also readily admitted that he didn't actually write that table (it must have been carried over from an earlier edition I don't have access to). So that answer was simply his understanding of the table's contents. Obviously I disagree from, but I'm used to having my opinion be in the minority. The rules do give me plenty of guidelines with which to toolkit/house-rule the characteristics of walls too thin to be considered walls by the RAW.

 

The key here is appropriately supported.  If a brick facade is less than 1/4" and makes a wall by itself, ok.  But if its covering a concrete backing, then even with the brick facade, its a concrete wall.

If it's supported by concrete, than yes I'd probably use the stats for concrete too, since that is much simpler than treating them as "layered barriers" with their own characteristics (and the players are unlikely to care about such things as much as I do). However I was thinking of various shenanigans you could use to make said brick façade more or less support itself (such as affixing it to a thick paper sheet, or duct tape, and hanging the 'wall sheet' from something to create the appearance of a 'solid brick wall').

 

The paper walls in Japan are not completely made out of paper.  They are framed in wood, 1/4" thick.  I have seen screens made of paper, but not a wall to separate room sections.

IIRC when you are writing the stats for a wall (or any object really), the rules suggest you use the stats for the weakest portion of the wall. So the paper wall would have the appropriate stats for a 'paper barrier', and wood framing would act as additional DEF and/or BODY with Partial Coverage (or maybe an Activation Roll, like sectional armor).

[Cantriped]

I think I'd give even a paper wall 1 body.  People (8 str) do 1 1/2 d6 damage when they try - that's enough to knock a hole in a 1 body wall unless they roll minimum (which makes sense - you swung at it and grazed it instead of hitting it). 

I can understand that, my main complaint being that doing so as a rule makes Barrier (the power that describes itself as creating Walls) inconsistent with the rules for Walls; which strikes me as a little bit absurd (but then again the inconsistency between Foci and Objects is absurd to me as well). The issue of being able to have 0 BODY is most relevant to extremely fragile non-wall objects*. An object with even 1 BODY requires at least 2 points of BODY damage to 'completely destroy' it. Meanwhile an object with 0 BODY can be 'completely destroyed' by just 1 point of BODY; because that 1 point is infinitely greater than 0 (in terms of multiples), making it far more than twice the objects base body. I think there should be an allowance made for objects so fragile that even a character with 3 Str (such as a pixie or small bird) is able to 'completely destroy' them in a single hit.

 

*Although, if you did have a 0 BODY wall, even 1 point of BODY would qualify as +1 BODY more than walls base BODY, and therefore double the size of the hole created. Which might be appropriately cinematic for certain types of walls when broken through.

[dsatow]

Too be honest, if you really think about it, the def/body system for objects does not really simulate real life at all if you go by RAW.  I mean say you have an interior wall of 2/2 with 3 body.  Someone with a hammer strikes at the wall, its going to leave  hole probably about the size of a baseball not destroy a 2m section of it.

[Cantriped]

That is very true.

In my campaigns (especially heroic ones) I replaced Beam with a suite of more generic modifiers, including one called "Does Not Leave Holes" which I give to pretty much all weapons to represent that very fact. Coring out huge holes with a single attack is very much a superheroic trope, like knockback, and not even a universally applied one. I wish it had been presented more or less as an optional rule like Knockback, instead of as a core element of the damage system. Then you could have "Does Leave Holes" as an advantage in Heroic campaigns (just like you sometimes see Does Knockback).

[Hugh Neilson]

I am currently unable to think of a single situation where having your entire barrier collapse due to a breach is advantageous to the character who placed it.

You surrounded yourself with a Barrier through which you can attack, but not move. It is breached. Would you rather have only one exit point, where the guy who broke the barrier is standing, or free movement?

 

You surrounded an opponent with a barrier. It is breached. Would you rather he have only one point without full cover from the remaining barrier, or that he be standing out in the open, an easier target for yourself and allies?

 

To be honest, if you really think about it, the def/body system for objects does not really simulate real life at all if you go by RAW.  I mean say you have an interior wall of 2/2 with 3 body.  Someone with a hammer strikes at the wall, its going to leave  hole probably about the size of a baseball not destroy a 2m section of it.

That's generally a function of SFX and Real Weapon limitations.

[DasBroot]

You surround yourself with a barrier.  It is breached.  Do you want to take knockback damage for slamming into another wall of your barrier?

 

As mentioned the body of objects is an odd thing in the rules anyways.  Especially when compared to the body of a non-object (character, automaton, etc).

 

A normal hero who spends nothing on body (Body 10) can take 19 Body without dying. Which is more damage than a car can take without being destroyed.

 

It also allows them to survive having the Statue of Liberty dropped on them (400 tons = 14d6.  You're good! ... until the next phase (squish)). Or have a (small) chance of surviving being hit by a ground to air missile (6d6 AP killing attack).

 

It's just an idiosyncrasy of the system.