Fox1

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Why in the world would someone want to completely rebuild agents and who knows what else and make their character write ups vastly non-standard (compared to published resources) to solve a problem that a easy change in a single table can do? Same thing with the whole buy Hand-to-Hand DCs and other suggestions I've seen put forth. A good general operating rule is to take the least complex path to correct a problem. Complex or restructured character builds is not the least complex path.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage I read his post differently. He stated: "Most people who die from bullet wounds die from bleeding to death. Those are the rules that need tweaked if you want to make Hero more deadly." Bolding mine. The wording selected wasn’t “another option is to...â€, it was a statement to the effect that this is the only valid place to make the change. He didn't say ""hee's another way..", he didn't say "another area that could be looked at is...", he didn't say "I would do the following..". He said Those are the rules that need tweaked Coming as it did on the heels of my post, it seemed like a direct criticism of my approach and a call for a different method. If that wasn't his intent, all is well is good. I meant "Taking the target down" in the sense of a reasonable expectation of being able to reduce them to 0 stun or less with a single shot. They are in addition meant to allow the chance of a instant kill, but that chance was meant to be the exception, not the expectation.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage May I make a suggestion? Read my rules first and run some numbers (math is good, math is your friend) BEFORE suggesting something for them to do that they already do, i.e. in this case allow most victims of gunshots to survive if medical attention is quick in coming.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming. Beat you to it. Have fun with your changes. I didn't carry it nearly as far you're intending for a number of reasons. I do wonder why you're using HERO for this however, I can think of a number of other game systems that would be better suited as a base.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Re: Automatic Hit Advantage Just passing through this thread. Won't staying in it to debate the point. But did want to comment that I think it's a bad idea that in general breaks a key design path of HERO. Carry on.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? If you're going to do that, you may was well bypass Body and get to the direct issue at hand. Does +5 strength indicated that the damage being dealt out is 2x effect in the same way it indicates it's 2x lift? I think we've reached an impasse at this point. I don't see this as a interpretive phase. I don't see any other possible answer to the question given the rules before us. And frankly, I wouldn't necessary believe a counter statement by Steve Long. In addition to the fact I consider his judgements a little unsound at times (i.e. some of the 5th edition changes), I believe such answers are also subject more to needs of the company than they are to actual fact. I would however believe Steve in that it is the official statement on the subject. So that has value to some.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? For a single target? +1 body = 2x mass, if you want it completely dead/destroyed total damage must equal or exceed 2x Body. No, that the rule for affect an area of a wall. The long standing HERO system view on that is that objects don't have any method of damage control like living creatures- thus 0 body on a object is 'destroyed' while for living creatures it's only 'dying' (Can't provide a cite now, that will have to come later if you wish). However... Destroyed for an object only means unusable for it's intended purpose. It could be repaired or savaged by outside action. It takes the same amount of damage (x2) to completely destroy an object as it does to kill a person. So they really aren't treated the same. The only times a difference comes into play where we start talking not about objects or creatures, but about hexes of material be it lying there on the floor or part of a wall. At that point HERO becomes confused because it's general rules produce unreasoned results and it tries to deal with it by exception.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage See my website for all the spiffy details. Click on the Firearms link. I was very unhappy with the firearms in HERO and worked out my own construction system for them. Almost nothing in their offical construction please me. The short version? The conversion methods I use mean that the damage a typical 9mm does is 2d6+1 RKA, +0 Stun Mod, Resistant Defense have 1.5x effect against it. Thor doesn't move planets, lift mountains, or pick up oceanliners. At least not in the comics I saw back in the day. The 100 ton hype works fine for our games. I don't want Thor doing things that would make me groan if I was reading his comic- and with the changes he doesn't.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? For Walls it much more than doubling, for dirt it's much less. But again those rules are for affects on areas and thus beyond the scope of the question before us.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage I have Thor in my game. It's not a problem. I don't want Superman in my game.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Very to my mind given the quote from the rules. To assume otherwise is to go looking for justification for a different approach, much like someone who questions if that "no smoking sign" applies to that table over there too.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Re: Paying points for Falling damage As are mine. We however reach a point where we object to playing stupid in order to make up for the faults of the game. When we reach that point- we act upon the causes the problem. Which is why we change the STR lift rule (and why we don't play DC comics instead of Marvel based ones).

Re: Is Punisher the problem? I typical run him outside the Avengers. With the Avengers I consider it issued team equipment. In the comics he's used his contact for everything from some lab work to a full scale military assault. It's all good. And no, he doesn't wipe out a gas mask when the Red Skull lobs the dust at him as a general rule, I have seen exceptions in the comics. Which again is sort of the whole point. Characters don't carry stuff with them all the time that isn't concept, but characters are able to get stuff if it suits the storyline. Sometimes they do even wipe it out in the middle of a combat round if it makes sense. Points = Concept. Everything else is the GM's adventure (which of couse should be geared towards the characer's concept).

Re: Paying points for Falling damage The example I provided was of an attack on a vehicle that wasn't able to attempt any such action. It just had a high defense and tunneling movement. But Mr. Super Bird wanted it wrecked. The whole example was to show how the x2 strength lift has serious issues compare to it's damage. One being SoD, and the other being actual game effects. If you wishes to extend the example beyond that, one still can. It takes three phases to make the attack and one more phase to escape from any future counter attacks. Assuming Mr. Super Bird can hang on to his target- that's still far better than taking a dozen counter attacks in order to haymaker the vehicle into breaking- and haymakers are easy to disrupt too. Heck the vehicle only needs to move. It make good game sense to do so. And again, that's why I use house rules to adjust the lift levels to the point when this tactic is far less useful. Those same lift rules also solve to some degree the whole MA vs. brick damage issue. I frankly can't see a reason not to adjust the STR scale except for one: You want to do a DC Comics style game but keep the dice count low. Here you're only choice is to depend upon players running style over effective.

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? HERO is confused about the subject. If one is attacking a character, there isn't offical one that I know of. You can have as many levels of growth as you want. The damage from any attack is resolved normally. If one is attacking dirt, the rulebook states that it's 1 hex with each point of damage thereafter only destroying another hex worth. If on insists on applying logic to the question... Anything that exists as a single object that could be seriously damaged by the loss of 1 hex of it's structure should be treated as a single target with the standard application of damage to it's body based upon it's mass. Anything else (such as dirt/rock/etc. and by extension the huge amount of dirt/rock/etc. that makes up a planet) should be treated by the latter method. Consider the old Wall ruling to the remains of an outdated and no longer useful rule construct that still exists in the system (like having 'str does not add damage' on RKAs with a STR Min limit). But logic doesn't need to apply here. HERO is attempting to have the best of both worlds- comics where Superman can punch Uber-Gianto Man-Bee on the jaw for full effect and at least a passing nod to reality where affecting big stuff is really really hard. So perhaps it's best to go with Genre. If you're playing a game where the characters should be able to crack the earth with one shot- treat it one way. If not, treat it the other way. Until there is a official ruling on the subject.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Is Punisher the problem?