Gary

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

May have been something I've overlooked. What advantage starcking would be overly effective?

 

- Christopher Mullins

The whole concept of advantage stacking comes about because you don't have to purchase advantages on other advantages, but merely on the base power. So it's cheaper to add advantages to a low base power high advantage attack than a high base power attack.

For example, a 4d6 Area Effect NND costs the same as a 12d6 EB. But to purchase 0 End would cost only 10 additional points for the first attack and 30 additional points for the 2nd attack.

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

You keep using Lifting - as in bringing strait up and holding? That creates Potential Energy.

Which is equal to the kinetic energy imparted into the object.

KE comes when released. If simply dropped then the V is the same in both cases: Gravity. Kinetic Energy exists only in a moving object. You need to talk about what Velocity a Given Mass can be thrown at in order to talk KE.

And Potential Energy = Kinetic Energy. And Potential Energy is linear to height (distance).

If thrown the idea is that 2x STR can impart 2x Velocity of thrown object - which with the KE formula then starts to quadruple things:

That's the error, the idea that 2X Str can impart 2X Velocity or 4 times kinetic energy. If that were the case, then a 15 Str person could throw an object 4 times as heavy at the same velocity as a 10 Str person.

Why don't you get a bodybuilder friend and have each of you throw the same bowling ball or baseball. I betcha your buddy won't be able to throw it 4 times as far as you can.

Re: BODY for Breakable Foci

For items with a Body stat, why not use the Ablative example to determine powers damaged?

There would be 9 separate increments (I'm separating 12- and 13- for this purpose unlike with Activation Rolls). So every 1/9 Body taken would reduce the Activation roll of all powers in the focus by 1 level.

15-

14-

13-

12-

11-

10-

9-

8-

Destroyed.

You can assign any extra body to be top heavy or bottom heavy at your discretion. So if you want it bottom heavy, an item with 15 Body might look like:

15- 1 Body

14- 1 Body

13- 1 Body

12- 2 Body

11- 2 Body

10- 2 Body

9- 2 Body

8- 2 Body

Destroyed 2 Body

Re: Pros and Cons of Dex/5 for combat

+5 Dex would cost 10 pts after Spd savings and would provide:

+1 OCV

+1 DCV

+1 Agility Skill Rolls

+5 Initiative

It sounds like it would still be a mild bargain. However repricing Dex without repricing Str or adjusting Power Frameworks would make Dex based characters less viable relative to other archetypes.

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

I'm going with the guy who posted formula. Post some to prove he's wrong.

 

and remember in the "real world" we can rarely throw an object as a perfect 45 degree angel and we have wind resistance to work against.

10 Str person throwing an object imparts X kinetic energy.

If 15 Str person throwing the same object really does impart double the initial velocity, then he would impart 4X kinetic energy. 1/2mv^2.

10 Str person can lift 100 kg to a height of 1 meter. Energy is mgh or 100*9.8*1=980 joules of energy.

15 Str person can lift 200 kg to a height of 1 meter. Energy is mgh or 200*9.8*1=1960 joules of energy. Or double the energy.

If 15 Str person could really impart twice the velocity or 4 times the kinetic energy to an object when throwing, then he would have to be able to lift 400 kg to a height of 1 meter. Which is clearly not the case.

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

No, the math is NOT sound.

If initial velocity was really doubled, then kinetic energy would be quadrupled not doubled, which is obviously not the case.

If kinetic energy were quadrupled, then someone with 15 Str would be able to lift 4 times what a 10 Str person could lift, if they were the same height. But the rules say 2 times Lift for +5 Str, ergo kinetic energy is only being doubled, not quadrupled. And if kinetic energy was only doubled, then velocity will only be increased by square root of 2 or about 1.4 times.

Also, it obviously fails the real world test as shown by the examples in the first post of this thread.

Re: Modeling Leverage

36 points.

 

That's what it takes to do a Change Environment that subtracts -12 off ground movement, trapping your victim in place, no matter how strong he is.

Well, you would need -12 to Running and probably -15 to -40 to Leap. Also, this wouldn't stop the character from pounding the ground or attacking other adjacent targets.

Re: Modeling Leverage

In most cases, Martial Grab does model leverage, so in HtH combat I'd just use that. With TK, just buy ranged Martial Arts.

 

The concrete Entangle is trickier. Off the top of my head as house rules:

 

1) If the GM declares that you don't have sufficient leverage, you get only your casual STR to break free. Obvious drawback: Players will attempt to use this on bricks constantly. Possible Solution offered in idea #2.

 

2) Let Entangle users buy Ranged Martial Maneuvers with their Entangles, reflecting skill and leverage. +4 DC = +1d6 worth of Entangle, Martial DIsarm alows one to disarm using an entangle, Martial Flash = entangle in sensory organs, Martial Grab requires breaking the Grab before using STR against the entangle, etc.

 

3) Rule that extra hexes of Entangle add to both DEF and BODY when someone is trying to break out from inside an Entangle, BODY only when outside. SFX is that the poor schlub trapped under tons of concrete just can't get the leverage to break out.

I like this approach! Will rep you when I can.

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

[Nitpick] It was actually Dean Shomshak who originated the equations and tables in "How Far Did Grond Throw You?" in Adventurerer's Club #20.[/Nitpick]

 

I won't reproduce the meat of the article here; legal reasons, or whatever.

Horizontal distance was calculated as (Initial Velocity x cos45) x Travel Time

Doubling the force (+5 STR) doubles the initial velocity and doubles the travel time as well (the equation used was T = (V x sin 45)/5).

Since both factors in the distance are doubled, the range is quadrupled. The thrown object is thrown at a greater velocity and it gets higher before gravity slows it down and brings it back to Earth so it stays airborne longer.

Personally, I've never been good at ballistic trajectory equations.

That formula would be wrong. Doubling Str would double kinetic energy, not velocity.

To simplify the equation, you can simply assume the character throws the object straight up into the air. The total energy imparted into the object is mgh where m = mass, g = 9.8 meters/sec^2, and h = height. So as you can see, kinetic energy is linear with height (or distance). Thus doubling kinetic energy means doubling distance, not quadrupling distance.

Re: Modeling Leverage

IIRC there is an ability in TUB that is a STR drain with the special effect of holding the opponent in such a way that they cannot use thier full STR. Something like that could work.

It shouldn't be less effective vs Bricks with Power Defense, and it should be something possible as an environmental effect.

You can probably get something reasonably close with a Change Environment, but just imagine the cost necessary to hold someone with Juggernaut's Str!

For a really strong invulnerable brick like Juggernaut, a classic genre element would be to trap him in concrete and let it dry. This works because while he's strong enough to shatter the concrete, his muscles have no leverage and he can't get out. This also applies to other situations such as quicksand or being lifted in the air where the brick can't use his full Str.

If you use normal Hero environmental rules, Juggernaut would easily be able to break free.

What's the best way to model lack of leverage in game terms without penalizing Bricks too much?

Re: Ultimate Brick "Realistic" Throwing Tables

It's intended for high STR characters' date=' is why the table starts at 40STR. And it is "realistic" not Realistic.[/quote']

 

It's not even "realistic". Doubling distance per +5 Str would be. And the starting point should be if you're lifting your maximum capacity, you can drop the object in hex or maybe a 1" throw.

 

As it stands, according to the charts, a 40 Str character lifting 1/5 of his maximum lift capacity could throw the object 1000 feet.

Re: Treating CV like levels

A better way would be to not base CV off of Dex and to have people buy OCV/DCV/Levels separately. Dex would be repriced of course.

Re: Do PSL vs Hit Locations Unablance the Game?

What I like for hit locations is a flat increase for head or vitals shots. So damage would be +2 DCs for Stomach or Vitals, and +4 DCs for Head Shots. This cannot more than double the base attack. (This will not work in reverse for arm/leg/hands/feet hits, however)

This gives a reasonable bonus for hitting a soft area without unbalancing the game, and makes the PSLs cost effective without being overwhelming.

Just got TUB and the "realistic" throwing table looks very wrong. I don't understand how +5 Str would lead to a quadrupling of throwing distance. It should be a doubling for every +5 Str.

Just as an example, at 40 Str, a character can throw a 100kg object 20,480". If you follow the example to its logical conclusion, you get:

Str	Distance
40	20480
35	5120
30	1280
25	320
20	80
15	20
10	5

According to the "realistic" throwing table, Arnold Schwartenegger in his prime could throw a 220 pound object about 520 feet. And a normal athletic man with 15 Str could throw the same object 130 feet. And a man who can barely lift the 220 pound object could throw it 32 feet.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Re: Alternative to VPP?

Actually, the equivalent 60 point VPP would cost quite a bit less, as all its powers would have 3x END, which would be a limitation on the control cost. That would make it a 105 point cost for the VPP (control cost being 30 x 3/2), and the VPP could hold two otherwise unlimited powers at a time.

 

That +1/2 variable advantage on a 60 point power would have allowed a 12d6 AP attack, or a 12d6 0 END attack. With the proposed "change it on the fly" advantage, it will only be 8d6. Of course, it can also be a 6d6 AE radius, and change the underlying power itself, so it can do a lot of things the +1/2 variable advantage can't.

 

Getting to the cost of the VPP decribed above would only be a +3/4 advantage. My gut feel is that the advantage for "change on the fly" should be lower, if anything. It allows only one power of 60 AP where the VPP would allow 2 powers of the same AP, with more limitations increasing the numbers, and would also permit a greater number of lower AP powers to be used simultaneously. While limitations can reduce the cost of this ability, but not the cost of a VPP's pool, limitations increase the number of powers the VPP can operate simultaneously, but don't enhance the total AP available to a non-VPP construct.

Don't forget, an "on the fly" Advantage can be placed in a Multipower or EC.

Re: Alternative to VPP?

Can be determined on the fly should be more than a +1 Advantage. That would be the same cost as a variable +1/2 Advantage, and it's a LOT more valuable. I'd say +2. Somewhat more expensive than a Cosmic VPP, but you can place limitations on all of it, not just a Control Cost.

Paying End would be a killer though, since you're paying 18 End for a 60 pt power.

Re: Expanded Change Environment

As others have pointed out, removal of a breathable substance means you can't breathe. No change from the usual rules for being unable to breathe. If the SFX of "can't breathe air" is flooding the area, then water breathing means you can breathe. If it's creation of a vacuum or sealing your head in an impermeable force bubble, you need to have LS: Need not Breathe. If you have the lower value LS for breathing, those rules apply to extend the timeframe accordingly.

 

The point is to create a game mechanic which permits the character to prevent the target from breathing. Not being able to breathe has defined effects in the game that cannot readily be duplicated with power constrcts at present (a choke hold or NND inflicts damage too fast).

 

Change Environment should be able to do this. As well, an adder for Entangles (Blocks Breathing) and force walls (Sue Storm surrounding the Hulk's head comes to mind) would also be appropriate. It's very powerful because it prevents recovery, and very weak because it takes a long time to KO the typical target.

 

For gravity, it should be possible to increase gravity in increments, and decrease or even reverse it in increments. Porbably this would need to have a scale similar to changing temperatures.

Gravity might be too powerful an effect to model with CE. Most CE effects are nuisance attacks or annoyances. An increase in gravity can cause huge game balance issues because it can incapacitate lower Str opponents in one phase.

Re: Expanded Change Environment

Wouldn't making the air unbreathable force the character to use the holding breath/drowning rules' date=' statted out in some weird way?[/quote']

 

That is both a powerful and a weak effect at the same time. It's powerful in the sense that the target can't take Recoveries while under the effects, and it's weak in the sense that it really adds only 1 End per phase to what the target spends. Also, it can start inflicting Body once the target is unconscious.

 

I'd price this as a 20 pt Adder to CE with a ! or stop sign. The appropriate LS would stop this effect, and each individual CP spent on holding breath would give you 20% normal Recoveries and 50% for PS 12 Recoveries. So spending 1 CP on holding breath (1 End/turn) for someone with 10 Rec would give him 5 Rec for PS 12 and 2 Rec if he takes a Recovery during the turn. If the character spent 2 CP (1 End/minute), he gets 10 Rec for PS 12 and gets 4 Rec if he takes a Recovery during the turn.

 

I'm not sure 20 pts is enough. But it's fairly easy to stop or move out of the field and it's not that devastating vs Supers. Vs Normals, it's a different story...

Re: Expanded Change Environment

I like both these ideas. Another for consideration is gravity manipulation. Actually' date=' a fourth would be removal of breathable substances (not only air, but making water unbreathable for those with water breathing).[/quote']

 

What would be the game effects of these 2 items? Once that's defined, we can price them accordingly.

It appears to me that Change Environment would be the perfect tool to handle some difficult game effects in Champions. Here are 2 possibilities that would otherwise be difficult or clunky to implement:

1) Increased End Cost. This would be a 10 pt Adder to CE that would make the target burn an additional 1/2 times End Cost per level. So for example, a 25 pt CE would affect 1 hex and would force the target to pay 2 times End Cost while he's in the hex. There must be a reasonable way to stop the power from working. For example, CE intense heat or cold would be stopped by the appropriate LS. CE gravity would be stopped by high non-Density Str, and CE hunger would be stopped by LS no need to eat.

2) Unluck usable against others. This would be a 10 pt Adder that inflicts 1d6 Unluck against every target caught in the field.

I'm sure there are any number of other game effects that would be modeled better by CE.

Re: "Newtonian Acceleration" Advantage?

. . . Sorry. I'm calculating using the Optional Velocity Damage tables on Fred' date=' p. 293. So a kinetic-kill missile travelling at 12 km/s, doing a Move By should do STR/2 + 24d6 of damage -- say, 25d6 for a man-sized missile.[/quote']

 

Ah, now I see.

 

I would limit the damage to Def+Body of the object to be consistent with the rest of Hero. So if the missile has 10 Def and 10 Body, I'd limit the damage to 20d6 regardless of how fast it's moving.

 

If the missile has only 12" of base flight, it would take a very long time for it to accelerate to 12 km/s. Long enough for the target ship to evade or shoot it down.

Re: "Newtonian Acceleration" Advantage?

I'd see that as a good model of reality. I'm aiming for hard-ish SF with my builds, rather than space opera.

 

O'course, combat would use Velocity-Based DCVs. At those speeds, any ship would be a mother to hit!

I don't think it's a good model of reality either, unless your typical weapons do thousands or millions of DCs of damage.

Standard movethrough/by rules have a linear increase in damage as velocity increases. However, most weapons have a logrithmic increase where you get +1 DC for every doubling of energy.

If a main gun on a battleship does 60-100 DCs of damage, it would be kinda silly for a man size object going at 3000"/phase to do 1000 DCs of damage.

Re: "Newtonian Acceleration" Advantage?

In terms of Move Throughs/Move Bys' date=' the speed matters very much. Anti-ship missiles work mostly through kinetic-kill, the difference between a missile launched at, say, escape velocity (ca 12 km/s, or 64,000"/turn) and one launced at max velocity for a GravWarp ship (2,304,000"/turn tor the Le Havre) is 20 Damage Classes.

I don't think I would allow standard movethrough/moveby rules with starships. The damage gets ridiculous way too quickly.

Re: How evil is this?

Anyone with 40+ Str is almost immune, and 30 will be immune a decent amount of the time since Casual Str would be enough to shrug off the TK.