Resartus

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

This also means modifying the Entangle and Force Wall rules, as these are both akin to inanimate objects. With many attacks likely reducing their BOD damage to enhance their STUN (and why not? Supers aren't generally trying to inflict BOD damage), Entangles and Force Walls could be come much more effective.

 

The contrary approach, of course, is a multiplower of "all STUN Dice" and "all BOD dice", using the former against live targets and the latter against objects, entangles, force walls and automatons. I think you're seriusly underestimating the impact of this change.

 

 

 

Let's compare:

 

Current system:

 

60 Multipower, 60 AP

 

3 u 4d6 RKA, does no STUN (-1)

5 u 12d6 EB, does STUN only (-1/4)

 

Total 68 points

 

vs 25 DEF Super - use EB and average 42 STUN = 17 STUN to opponent.

vs 6 BOD 6 DEF entangle, use KA and average 14 BOD, inflicting 8 (and breaking the entangle, but not doubling its remaining BOD).

 

Proposed System

 

60 Multipower, 60 AP

 

6 u 8 1/2d6 BOD Damage (8 x 7 = 56 pts + 4 = 60)

6 u 15d6 EB, does STUN only (15 x 4 = 60 points)

 

vs 25 DEF Super - use EB and average 52.5 STUN = 25.5 STUN to opponent, much more likely to STUN.

vs 6 BOD 6 DEF entangle, use KA and average 30 BOD, inflicting 22 (and shattering the entangle with almost 4x its remaining BOD)

 

To fix the Entangle problem, you have to cut it down to about 5 points per die, so 60 points gets 12d6 (12 DEF 12 BOD) and that KA gets 18 BOD through, breaking the entangle easily (or 4 per die, so 15/15, so the average hit just gets through). But now our 60 STR Brick will be entangled forever, while our EP gets out with ease.

 

To fix the STUN blast problem, you need to reduce the average cost of DEF by about 50% to get the same average damage, so DEF 37. But now a balanced attack (12d6 STUN and 4d6 BOD) trickles a mere 5 STUN through.

 

To repeat, I don't think you've fully flowed the ramifications of your proposed change through.

Very good points, thank you. And your right I'm just starting to workout the specifics of this idea and I originally intended it to be part of a system derivation, I didn't envision it working well with the current system. However, I do have a reasonable fix that might balance things a bit more. You can use the pure damage types to recreate and tweak the types of attacks available to your compaign, sort of genre convention if you will. To support the typical champions genre you could do the following:

Normal attacks (HAs and EBs) start with a 3-to-1 ratio of Stun damage to Body damage. The body damage can be reduced to nothing allowing a stun only attack.

Lethal attacks (RKAs and HKAs) must have a 1-to-1 ratio of Stun damage to Body damage. The Stun damage may be increased to simulate the "knock down" effects of specific weapons and attacks (i.e. large caliber bullets, "man-stopper" specialty ammo). This reflects the current system limitation on the minimum stun multiplier of 1.

So with those meta-rules in place you get the following multipower attacks:

60 point multipower, 60 AP

5u - RKA: 5d6 Body Attack - Ranged plus 5d6 Stun Attack - Ranged (7x5=35 AP plus 4x5=20 AP, 55 AP total)

6u - EB: 2d6 Body Attack - Ranged plus 11.5d6 Stun Attack - Ranged (7x2=14 AP plus 4x11 + 2=46 AP, 60 AP total)

6u - Stun Only: 15d6 Stun Attack - Ranged (4x15=60 AP)

That's a bit closer to the current system and gives you an RKA that isn't going to out stun an EB and a very basic rolling mechanic. Basically I'd like to see more of the internals of Hero, it's a nice tool kit as is, but I'd like a little more granularity so you can see the genre conventions expressed as templates or meta-rules to make it more obvious what can be tweaked and what will be affected when you do so.

Any way, let me know what you think, the feedback has been good so far and I learn a little more about this system every time I post.

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

I'm not sure I like it. Too easy to slap it into a multipower with one slot doing all stun damage and one slot doing all body damage.

 

At 3 or 4 points per die, you'd be able to fit either 15 or 20 dice per slot, with plenty of room to spread and wipe out a room full of agents or to easily hit a martial artist. On the body side, you'd be able to trivially blow away any force wall, foci, entangle or automaton.

 

Too unbalanced, IMO.

As a polish to the current system I agree with you it's too cheap. Some of the other changes I'm making include increasing body by a factor of 2 or more to bring it in line with stun. Inanimate objects would need a boost in defence as well as body to stay in line with the changes but I'm planning on doing that as well.

To keep things in line with the current system you'd need to charge 7 points per d6 of body damage. That is the cost by the way if you take the "reduced stun multiplier" limitation 5 times. Currently you can only take that limitation 4 times reducing the cost to 7.5 points per DC but I'm shooting for a pure body attack. I personally think that a stun only EB is worth a -1/4 limitation which would bring a pure stun attack to exactly 4 points per DC.

So here is the Ion Blaster compound power example again with the current system costs and then the changes I've just mentioned:

Current Rules:

Ion Blaster: (Total: 60 Active Cost, 45 Real Cost) Energy Blast 6d6, STUN Only (+0) (Real Cost: 30) plus Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6 (30 Active Points); -4 Decreased Stun Multiplier (-1) (Real Cost: 15)

My Changes:

Ion Blaster: (Total: 38 Active Cost, 38 Real Cost) Stun Attack - Ranged 6d6 (Real Cost: 24) plus Body Attack - Ranged 2d6 (14 Active Points) (Real Cost: 14)

If you wanted the compound attack to closer simulate a current 30 AP Energy Blast you could drop one of the Body Attack (killing) damage classes and it would only cost 31 points. The benefit, you just roll the damage and subtract from the affected stat, no counting BOD, no stun lotto. I'd still drop resistant defenses and just let normal PD or ED handle everything, but that's just me.

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

I'm planning an extensive set of changes to the current system to form a house system. One of the changes removes EBs and KAs from the game as they exist now. Every attack becomes a compound power that usually includes stun damage and body damage. Bascially you just roll the dice listed for each stat or power effected and subtract the numbers rolled from the character's stat pools. No stun lotto, no counting BOD, just plain addition and subtraction like most other games. There are a lot of things I like about Hero but the current damage mechanics aren't one of them.

The equivalent of a 30 AP EB might look like:

Ion Blaster: 6d6 stun, 2d6 body vs. ED (maser sfx)

Has the same average and almost the same range as the current system, but you could modify it up or down to suit your need for leathality based on genre.

A hand gun might look like:

Berreta model 92 (9mm): 2d6 stun, 4d6 body vs. PD (bullet sfx)

HK USP (.45 ACP): 4d6 stun, 5.5d6 body vs. PD (bullet sfx)

I'm sure your thinking, that's a lot of body damage, and it is. But I'm going to modify the hit location chart to reduce body damage based on location. Basically most of the body damage would just blow through your arm or leg, but a solid hit to a vital area with have the full effect rolled. I'll also up the average BODY stat to bring it closer to stun.

As far as cost goes I'm thinking 3 or 4 points per die.

I'm also considering dropping resistant defenses as well. They're only there to support how killing attacks work now. I'm more of the mind that defense is defense, if something stops physical damage then it should work against all physical damage unless the attack has an advantage that improves it's penetration, or the defense is limited to specific sfx (i.e. bullet resistant vests). There are already power advantages that cover defense penetration just fine it shouldn't be an inherent part of the power.

Re: Polishing The HERO System

Running a supers game with this system would make things somewhat tedious however. I dislike rolling 14d6 damage and would dislike rolling 28d6 even more. Not to mention at that level damage would be incredibly normalized and rarely extreme. I think then you would have to come up with some diceX mechanic to compensate (e.g. never roll more than 7-10 dice' date=' picking the lowest dice possible and setting a multiplier: 28d6 = 7d6x4).[/quote']

 

Funny you should mention that, GURPS does the same thing with all of it's high end damage. Anything after 24d6 becomes 4d6-8d6 times a mulitplier, so 142d6 becomes 6d6x24, 28d6 becomes 4d6x7, 54d6 becomes 6d6x9, etc. It keeps the dice rolls smaller which is helpful sometimes but you end up using a calculator for some damage rolls.

 

My biggest issue with the current doubling of damage is the lack of granularity you get with KAs, you can't tell them apart at high levels.

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

The 5.7mm really should be compared to a 9mm Parabellum or .45 ACP, since those are the calibers it is trying to replace, it is nowhere near the power of even the 5.56mm NATO (of course it is also much smaller with less recoil). Its ability to penetrate Kevlar is its only claim, from what I've heard it isn't even close to the 9mm for "knock-down".

 

The tumbler round included in DC is horrible, no weapons have "tumbling" bullets as described, the bullets rapidly tumble on impact not in flight. The reason the M16 changed from 1 in 14" to 1 in 12" was because in sub-zero temperatures the rounds did tend to tumble in flight which is terribly inaccurate.

 

Edsel, I didn't notice the first time around but do you take caliber into account for penetration? Assuming equal energy the smaller caliber will have better penetration (it can use more energy to go deeper instead of making a large hole) that is how 3g3 figures damage value, but the problem with 3g3 is it doesn't take into account a larger hole means it is doing more damage to what ever it is going through (if its a car door big deal but if it is your leg...)

Agreed, the only reason I was comparing the 5.7 to 5.56 NATO was velocity. Velocity defeats Kevlar, as long as the bullet doesn't have a really blunt or flat nose. I think the damage for the 5.7 should be 1D6 when fired from a pistol and 1D6+1 when fired from a P90 or similar weapon. I just needs a large number of piercing points for soft (aramid fiber) armors. I'm sure that it would be stopped by a threat level III or IV vest because of the plates.

On a side note, the 5.7 tumbles in soft tissue and creates a decent wound channel. One of the articles in my earlier post is from a Houston SWAT member and mentions the performance of the P90 in a fatal shooting. The round tumbled as expected without over-penetrating.

Re: Guns, guns and more guns

However there are just so many variables when dealing with guns and cartridges that... gaaah! You get the idea. My system may work okay for figuring out how some rounds compare to each other but there are some rounds that just defy logic. For instance if you feed all the data in for the P90 submachine gun you find that it should really be very poor at penetrating anything (the momentum of the round is horrible). On the other end of the scale you'll find that H&H new .700 Nitro Express penetrates armor as well as a .50-cal HMG. Of course maybe a 1000 grain .700 dia. bullet at 2000 fps would penetrate quite a bit if it weren't for that round nose.

 

In the end I really just have to rely on my own knowledge and experience (which is questionable) and give it my best guess.

The funny thing about the SS190 (the AP round for the P90) is that it is poor at penetrating anything but Kevlar. Basically any reasonably pointy round that travels at more than 2000 FPS is going to penetrate Threat level IIIa or less Kevlar armor. Modern aramid (family of fiber materials that includes Kevlar) based armors are really only good at stopping pistol calibers, it's a velocity issue. The only reason that a Threat level III or IV vest will stop a rifle round is the insert plates which are made of composites, ceramics, or steel.

I saw a video from FN Herstal recently that demonstrated the P90 in various conditions, it was interesting. One the major points that was made in the video was the lack of penetration that the P90 had against solid materials. The used it on a cinder block wall at point blank range and full-auto and none of the rounds went through. Try the same thing with an M-16 or an M-14 and you'll get penetration very quickly. Guns, guns, guns third edition gave the P90 a maximum penetration of 3.5 mm of armor quality steel vs. 6mm for 5.56mm round (M16). The biggest difference between the two rounds is mass, the NATO 5.56 has at least twice the mass of a SS190.

Basically the SS190 is almost exactly like a reversed ogive round (DC pg 206) or as it's better known a THV round. It dumps most of it's mass to achieve high velocity giving it soft armor penetration. Here are a couple of links about the P90 and Five seveN:

http://www.trmagonline.com/Spring2003TR/spring2003experienceswiththefnp90.htm

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=2

The first link covers some real world terminal ballistics info from a Houston SWAT member. The second link gives some interesting comparisons on the SS190 round. I was slightly surprised by the armor penetration of the SS190 when fired from the Five seveN (pistol companion to the P90 PDW), I didn't think it would have enough muzzel velocity. Please keep in mind that a PASGT vest like the ones in the second article have only 16 layers of Kevlar and a 1 mm thick titanium backing. Most threat level IIIa vests are over 30 layers thick, so keep this in mind when you read the part about it going through the front, back, and front of a second vest.

And while I'll be the first person to say that the P90 is not a wonder weapon, I was disapointed in the write-up it got in DC. Especially the tumbler designation which is completely wrong. The round can't tumble end over end as described and still be decent at penetrating armor which it is. The whole writeup reminds me of Mega Playboy's issue with 10 DEF battleship armor, it's just plain wrong.

It's late, and I'm going to call it quits. Sorry if I rambled, but the write up for the P90 bugs me.

Re: Dark Champions Campaigns

I'm converting Gurps Black Ops to Hero and Dark Champions will be a big help. I really like what I've seen in the playtest, I can't wait to get my hands on a hardcopy.

Black Ops is sort of "Weird" Spec Ops setting in the same way that Deadlands is "Wierd" wild west. The setting is a little bit MIB, a lot of special operations, a little supernatural, and definitely over the top cinematic fun. The starting characters will probably be 500 pts in a heroic style campaign (long skill lists).

I'll be adding my own stuff to it as well. I've got an old campaign that I ran years ago that had a very similar background so I'm merging them together and converting them to Hero/Dark Champions. I'm very happy with it so far, the supernatural abilities are much easier to model in Hero than they were in Gurps. I'll post some more details after the game starts, I don't want any of my players to see what their in for before things get rolling.

Re: Lack of Power coverage

Just to refocus the thread, because it is starting to bog down in minutia.

 

It seems that with regards to "making things more difficult than really needed": Shape Shift, Possesion, Astral Projection, and Regeneration.

 

Areas not covered by the Powers Regime: Power Duplication, Invulnerability, and Certain Mental Powers (reading surface thoughts)

 

I'm most interested in powers that currently can't be duplicated (or are just duplicated with Transform or worse Change Dimension). Where do these gaps exist?

Time manipulation, someone else mentioned it earlier but I didn't see it in your recap.

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

A Yield Sign it is then.

 

Is it just me, or does "with GM permission" seem to be Steve's stock answer to everything even remotely ambiguous?

It's not just you, GM permission seems to be getting more and more frequent the longer I spend time on these boards.

On a different note, I want to say thank you to everyone for helping me with this construct. It works much better than Aid in my setting. I'm hoping to eventually post the whole thing to the Other Genre form.

Thanks again to everyone that helped, I'm much happier about this now.

Re: Lack of Power coverage

Real speedsters.

I love the speed chart, but the granularity is way to course. Characters like the Flash and Quicksilver are capable of doing several different tasks in a single second. You can't model this in Hero, you can model the relative speeds of different characters but not the absolute speed that you see in comics and movies. I'd like to see the speed chart changed to represent fractions of a second and then put a baseline human at speed 1 and/or have a each step on the chart increase buy a half phase equilvalent action instead of a whole action and have the chart go to 20 or 24 half-phase segments.

Obviously this would be a big change, so I doubt anything like it will every happen in Hero but I'd like to see it.

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

?? Skill levels with Telepathy can boost OCV, DCV or Damage Classes, right? SO let's say our Psionic has 6 levels from this material, and 12d6 Telepathy. He can use it to boost his OECV (better chance of success, especially vs another psionic), DECV (better protection from other psionics, or his target, while mind probing) or add 3 DC - more likely to get the depth of probe desired and/or more penalties to the target's breakout roll.

 

Although I don't generally allow levels to add DC's in a superheroic campaign, here I think I would make an exception.

Sorry, my earlier reply missed the point. What I meant to say was CSLs won't increase the strength of telekinesis or the range of telepathy or the inches of movement in teleportation (a psionic ability in this setting). I'm looking for raw power increase and I'm very happy with Lord Liaden and Dust Raven's suggestions.

I like the applications for CSLs that you've mentioned and I'll probably use them for some of the "training" equipment. In the setting it's possible to record the experience and memories of a person and play them back as the situation demands. These memory devices are called skeins and look like braided strands of plant material worn around your head. The game effect is increased experience with your abilities which is a perfect fit for CSLs. I'm planning on letting the players buy off the Focus limitation over time to reflect their characters integrating the experiences they've been exposed to over and over again.

Thanks again.

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

I've seen this type of construct for a number of published characters in the past; AFAIK there's nothing against it in the current rules.

 

Normally the conditional part is bought as an additional VPP which adds directly to the non-limited VPP, with the conditional Limitation applied to the Control Cost, not the Pool. If the material which boosts the character's power level is also needed to use any Power in the "booster Pool", that Power would also get to take the Limitation to reduce its cost; but the cost of the Pool itself isn't reduced.

 

If that wasn't clear, please feel free to post followup questions.

That was very clear. Thank you. But I still have a quick question. I thought there was a general rule that powers in one framework coulndn't be added to powers in another framework. Or does that restriction only apply when the frameworks are of different types like a multipower and an elemental control?

Re: Whats your favorite Attack?

Indirect attacks of all kinds. My personal favorite is fire called down from an orbital defense platform. There's nothing like walking up to a group of heavy armed bad guys, pointing up at the sky and smiling.

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

To answer your question: to the best of my knowledge' date=' yes. You might want to consider just building it as CSLs with Psionics bought through a Focus, though, since that would be a lot simpler.[/quote']

 

I hadn't thought of that possibility before. But how would it help things like telepathy? I need to boost anything that can be in a VPP with a psionics SFX. I will file that suggestion away for future use though, it will help me with some of the other hardware I've thought up.

 

Thank you

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

While most of the characters won't have stats above 20 it is definitely a superpowered campagin. Point totals so far are hitting 750, one of the NPCs is 1200 points already and I'm not done with him. The equipment is definitely going to cost points I don't like the balance issues that charging money brings into a game. It's actually one of the reasons that I quit playing Gurps and switched to Hero. I can cost everything out to insure balance.

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

I'm asking because I'm trying to model something specific in a campaign and the only other construct I can find is Aid or Succor.

The campaign has high level Psionics, there is a material (a metal alloy) that amplifies psionic powers when you're in it's presence. The more material you're near the bigger the boost to your powers. This is perfect for a partially limited power using conditional limitations, except that the power is a VPP. I can use Aid or Succor for this but it gets messy. The characters in this setting use the material in just about everything they make and Aid adds a lot of cost and verbage to each and every item in the campaign that I'd rather ignore.

A VPP is the only way I can cover everything that the characters can do in this setting without making it an exercise in bookkeeping. And since you can't mitigate the cost of the Pool itself the only thing I can think to do for this is to partially limit the control cost. Does anyone have any other ideas on how to do this? Should I just come up with single compound limitation like Beam and apply it to the control cost?

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Can you have a partially limited VPP? And if so what would it look like?

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

Just a side note. In the Ultimates, Marvel's modern day take on the Avengers, the Hulk takes pieces of Iron Man's armor off in the *middle* of a fight. So I guess that the Ultimate Iron Man armor is actually an OAF if your strength is high enough!

Re: Realistic Body Armor Rules

I agree with most of this but since this is another one saying body armor only works vs bullets, that simply isn't true. Soft Body armor doesn't work well against some types of attacks but they are fairly limited. Body armor works great against slashing attacks, blunt trauma, car crashes, fire (kevlar is used in many brands of firefighting gear) and a great many other types of attack. What body armor doesn't do well is protect against small pointed stabbing weapons like ice picks or multiple strikes (autofire weapons). Pointy weapons at low velocity tend to move the strands of armor out of the way and multiple attacks tend to cause the armor to bunch up creating "holes" where the armor material has moved out of place. There are body armors with fine titanium mesh to deal with stabbing attacks (often used by corrections officers), and newer materials that are bonded in place to prevent its dislocation from multiple strikes.

 

I agree though that the disadvantages of body armor should be dealt with, discomfort, heat stress, and concealability being at the top. The encumbrance rules in HERO have never been very good, many of the disadvantages of armor are fine to ignore in FH because it fits the genre in most cases but modern armors should be more of a trade off even though they actually are nothing compared to wearing mideval armor.

I think Edsel and I are were refering to concealable bullet-resistant vests. Specifically threat level IIa and IIIa armors, which traditionally have poor performance against knives or club attacks unless the attack hits a trauma plate. Now a threat level III or IV style vest will provide a lot more protection against blunt trauma and knive attacks becuase of the significant increase in layers and larger stronger trauma plates. So I could see a III or IV providing almost it's full protection against those types of attacks but not the average IIa or IIIa. And again I want to emphasize *reduced* protection against non-bullet type attacks. I just have a hard time with a Kevlar vest (IIIa) providing 9 rPD against knife attacks, it would be impervious to a normal dagger. I could see it providing 3 or 4 rPD which puts it in the same class as boiled leather or brigadine.

As far as energy attacks go Kevlar is great at dealing with heat because it was originally designed a supplemental material for tires. I would probably give it a higher rPD against heat than any of the current values (5, 9, 11). But how well does it protect against cold, sound, electricity, lasers, etc.

Another good point that you brought up is repeated hits, only the newer vests, made out of bonded materials like Spectra perform well against repeated hits. Maybe we should model the older vests with the ablative limitation? If nothing else this could give a little shopping variety to the players, give them older tech vests at reduced prices. Also several people on this board have wanted to see some timeline perspective on available weapons and technology. Armor should get the same treatment. The improvements you listed weren't available 20 years ago, even Kevlar itself has been improved in that time frame. And in the near future we'll see spider silk replace current fibers in protective vests for even better protection. So maybe the armor section could be a small table that shows the improvements over the last 60 years, from flak jackets to now and maybe a little into the future. I know I'd appreciate it, but it's not a huge deal, I can live with the current stats for playability reasons if I have too.

Re: DARK CHAMPIONS: What Do *You* Want To See?

I'd like to see guns get a PRE stat. Dirty Harry pointing a .44Mag in someones face and saying "Do you feel lucky punk?" is a great example of PRE based intimidation attack.

Re: Range Combat: Gun Fu & rule changes

5)Specific to gun combat.... I want to see rule mods that are simple (not requiring extra dice rolls or multiplication/division or anything like that) that encourage/support the following

a) There is a reason semi-automatic pistols are used over revolvers. They fire faster, carry more rounds, etc. and that should mean something in the game.

Firing more rounds in a shorter amount of time is important... period. Two or three shot bursts are standard... not special... and handguns should run through a clip in seconds... not go through a full combat counting every shot.

c) There should be advantages and disadvantages to every type of gun, round, etc. There is a reason the 9mm is the most popular and widely used pistol round, despite the .45 ACP being superior in many ways. Game state wise, there is no reason to carry smaller, lighter rounds. Same with 5.56 vs. 7.62. The game always encourages you to take the biggest, badest gun possible... but that isn't happening in the real world. What does the game need to better reflect reality?

 

I welcome any suggestions out there. This "gun flavah" is really important to me... as a defining difference between a supers campaign and more DC campaigns. (Especially if DC is taking the place of DI as well.)

First I'm going to appologize for the way some of this wanders around, I've had 3 hours sleep. Hopefully some of the following will be useful.

To expand on what Toadmaster said the fastest IDPA shooter in the world uses a custom made 8 shot revolver because he can place a shot faster than the slide on any semi-automatic can cycle. Plus in competitions reliability is key and revolvers are much simpler mechanically than a semi-auto. This is the reason that most people that carry a backup gun carry a revolver. Combat however is a different story...

The trend towards semi-auto handguns was pushed by capacity and reload speed. Compare a traditional .45 caliber semi-auto built on the 1911A1 frame which only has 7 rounds in the clip and 1 round chambered for a total of 8 to most 9mm handguns with a 13-17 round clip capacity. (current laws limit new civilian guns to 10 rounds) A further example of this trend is the FN Herstal Five-seveN semi-auto handgun. It's chambered for 5.7mm rounds and can carry 20 rounds in a clip. In real combat you don't want to be caught reloading during a firefight but if you are then you want to reload as quickly as possible. To reflect this in game some weapons (ex: revolvers) should have a penalty to the fastdraw skill for quick reloading. Another option would be to expand the rules on fastdraw to cover weapons that take longer than a half-phase to reload and then have some weapons take a full phase or longer to reload. This would encourage the use of high capacity, smaller caliber weapons.

I'd also like to see a change to the "Real Weapon" limitation. I'd like to see it include a chance of malfunction, so that it would model things like jams and misfires. I know that I can just add an activation roll limitation but "Real Weapon" seems to imply one and I don't want it to be as drastic as the normal activation roll. Revolvers for instance should have a very small chance to fail, modern semi-autos would be more likely to fail, and full-auto weapons even more likely fail but in most cases the roll needs to be less likely than the current rules for "Activation Roll". Maybe the "Real Weapon" limitation could include the following:

New Real Weapon

-1/4 (Activation Roll of 18- with situational modifiers)

-1/2 (Activation Roll of 17- with situational modifiers)

-3/4 (Activation Roll of 16- with situational modifiers)

-1 (Activation Roll of 15- with situational modifiers)

-1 1/4 (Activation Roll of 14- with situational modifiers)

Situational modifiers include things like rain, dropping the weapon in the mud or sewers, exposure to harsh chemicals, firing 300 rounds without a cleaning, etc. Basically a large number of things in the campaign can allow the GM to lower the initial activation roll which wouldn't be reset until the character takes the time to clean the weapon. Here are some suggestions on activation rolls for common action types:

18- single shot "Break" open style firearm (some shotguns, Thompson Contender Pistol)

17- revolvers, bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns

16- semi-automatic (pistols, rifles, shotguns)

15 - full-automatic (pisotls, rifles, shotguns)

+1 for better than average quality weapon (increased price)

-1 for poor quality weapon (reduced price)

Maybe just better guidelines on when to start hassling players with malfunctions would work if you feel like an activation roll is too much.

Arguably there is little difference in the real world effectiveness of most handgun rounds assuming that you're not talking about ball ammo. Hero, intentionally or not, seems to reflect this by having a very small spread of damage between 9mm and .44Mag rounds. This is actually a good thing, with a few optional rules like the ones that Toadmaster suggested makes a high capacity handgun look like a much more useful weapon to a GunFu master than the traditional .45 semi-auto. I'd like to add a few tweaks to Toadmaster's suggested rules:

Add in rules for recoil, a .45 is harder to accurately double tap with than a 9mm because of the recoil. Recoil can be compensated for but usually at the expense of night vision (ported barrel) or weight. This plays into the OCV penalties for taking additional shots in the same phase. It will also play into the accuracy of auto-fire, a .45 based sub-machine gun will be harder to control than a 9mm SMG of the same weight. To borrow Toadmaster's example of double fire (-2 OCV for 2 shots):

Caliber/Recoil/Total OCV Penalty for a doubleshot

5.7mm/-0.5/-1 OCV

9mm/-1/-2 OCV

.45/-1.5/-3 OCV

.44Mag/-2/-4 OCV

The same sort of chart could be developed for Auto-Fire, again borrowing from Toadmaster's example of OCV bonuses to AF:

Caliber/3 rounds/5 rounds/10 rounds/20 rounds

5.7mm/+2/+3/+5/+9

9mm/+1/+2/+4/+8

.45/+0/+1/+3/+7

.44Mag/+0/+0/+2/+6

These were just quick examples but they definitely encourage a smaller round with lower recoil when using rapid fire attacks. This models the current trend towards PDW type rounds and handguns with high capacity. And gives players a clear reason to choose a 9mm over a .45, not that Toadmaster's "ammo like water" (trademarked?) rule additions don't already do that. The recoil idea just adds a little more incentive and is in keeping with the trend of better burst control.

Cost is a very prevalent reason to chose 9mm rounds over .45 or .44Mag, etc. 9mm rounds are cheaper than .45 rounds of the same flavor. When your player's characters are buying armor piercing ammo (x10 cost) for their 9mm SMG that fires 15 rounds a second, the cost starts to stack up quick.

In any case, let me know what you think. I for one would love to see a formalized version of Toadmaster's rule mods for guns. He's posted other really good stuff elsewhere on this board it'd be great to see it all in one place. (hint hint)

Re: DARK CHAMPIONS: What Do *You* Want To See?

Something else I ran across while raiding my bookshelf for ideas. Noise levels, it would be very handy to know how loud a silenced 9mm is and how likely it is for the guard at the end of the hall to hear it. Since this book will cover modern spy/espionage material, sneaking around is going to be very important. Some expanded material on how stealth is handled in game along side real world data would be great! Pretty much what you've already planned to do with forensics but will stealth.

BTW, I can hardly wait for this book. I've been excited about it since I first saw it on the release schedule.

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

Oops, That last post was a little more off topic that I realized at first. So I'll confine this one to a list of Ammo types I'd like to see:

Armor Piercing: I know this sounds obvious but I'd like to see some guidelines on how many levels of AP a real world round could have. I'm sure that a depleted uranium round would have more AP than a standard steel penetrator but how much more?

Semi-Armor Piercing: This category covers rounds that are better at penetrating armor than standard FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) ammo but don't really qualify as AP. These rounds usually achieve this by shape and/or high velocities.

Armor Piercing Saboted: Probably has more than one level of AP and definately has better range than the standard round fired from the same gun. Will probably do less damage to living targets because of it's smaller caliber.

Armor Piercing Explosive: Good at getting through armor and then exploding inside. Not typically available in small calibers but very nasty for a vigilanty's "Big Gun". Also tends to prevent over penetration normaly associated with large caliber rounds.

Hollow Point: Should get reduced penetration against armors but should do more damage to a living target because of the post entry expansion.

Tracers: Should provide some sort of aiming bonus while firing at the same target across multiple phases.

Incendiary: Will set some targets on fire and do some additional damage to living targets. Maybe just a single point of RKA with a fire special effect?

Frangible: Breaks up on any hard surface especially armors but will do normal damage to soft Kevlar type armors and unarmored living targets. Great for preventing a missed shot from going through a wall and hitting an innocent target on the other side.

Baton/Bean Bag/Rubber Shot: Grenade launcher/shotgun ammo designed to be non-lethal. Often deployed in crowd control situations.

As a general question, will most firearms in DC be written up as Multipowers to reflect their performance with different ammo types?

Re: DARK CHAMPIONS: What Do *You* Want To See?

I haven't seen anyone mention time periods yet. It'd be nice to see the material put into a timeline perspective, especially advanced weapons and forensics. For instance, when did DNA evidence become legal in court? How long has C4 been around? When did kevlar vests first become available? Even just a date at the end of the description would be great, it would let people know what not to allow in their Untouchables campaign or which military grade hardware could be issued to their Desert Storm characters.

Re: We're Gonna Need Guns

I think Metal Storm http://www.metalstorm.com/ weapons definitely fit the definition of "cutting-edge". I'd really like to see an official write up on them. Especially the O'Dwyer VLe Smartgun http://www.metalstorm.com/04_what_is_a_smart_gun.html, it has non-lethal and lethal rounds available via selector switch or voice activation.

It also be very nice to see some work on armor. This subject tends to get overlooked when guns are brought up. I'd like to see some coverage of newer aramid fibers and materials like Spectra. Spider silk will also be an option in the near future and could easily be available in a DC campaign. And of course there is this little gem about liquid armor http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,usa3_042104.00.html.

But advances and new stuff aside a more detailed write-up of Kevlar type soft armors would be nice. For instance the protection they provide really only works against bullets. A Kevlar vest without an insert is usless at protecting against a knife or even a baseball bat and the write-up should reflect that in a gritty campaign.

And what would the average vigilante be without his ride? A small addition that covered class IV and V armors that can be bought for real world vehicles would be nice. It would give GMs a guideline for armoring a Mafia Don's limo or a Brinks money transport. Class IV armors for instance should stop a perfectly square hit from a .308 at point blank, so it would be a least rPD 13 in Hero terms.