Fox1

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

If it is a problem, isn't it a problem with the toughness of normals? Maybe both the 43 strength brick and the 13 strength martial artist with the stick should be doing enough damage to drop an agent and keep him down?

 

If you want frailer agents, build frailer agents.

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 realize I'm putting my head on the chopping block here' date=' but I'd rather it be mine than Champsguy's because I [i']have[/i] read your house rules, and he was just making an open suggestion that didn't specificaly apply to your house rules.

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.

From what I read in your house rules and how you explained them to me, what you just said now doesn't jive. Well, unless I happened to miss something. I do recall you saying that your rules are meant to instant kills. Taking down the target in a single hit and all that. Perhaps you meant simply KOing them, but that's not how it came across to me.

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

Of course, lots of people actually survive bullet wounds. My cousin got shot because he's a moron and doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut, and doesn't know when not to call a car full of black guys certain names when he's in certain parts of town. Got shot in the stomach. Regardless, he survived no problem.

 

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.

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?

On my other note' date=' Steve's answer was understandably not an answer, exactly, but I think it betrays at the least that there's definitely no canonical obvious ruling on this. Aside from that, I do wish to say to Fox1 that by all means I'm not going to say that Steve's answer indicates he's wrong - it just indicates he might be. [/quote']

 

It was the answer I expected given some past experience. Steve Long isnt one to give answers that is likely to upset people, given a choice he'll leave any such questions up to players. Vague is to his taste in many things.

 

He's a fine editor however if not designer, and the system is likely lucky to have him whatever his other faults are. Without him the books just wouldn't have gotten written.

 

So, we have an offical answer. Do it how it best fits your campaign and call it good.

Re: James’ rules for ‘realistic’ Hero gaming.

11) Weapons charts will be altered to reflect the FBI theories. Damages are raised or lowered accordingly (this requires further research).

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

Looked up Fox1's website: lot of good work there' date=' but if you want deadly firearms, just tinker with the namby-pamby rules for disabling. A hit to the head or vitals that exceeds your BODY after the multiplier gets you a CON roll, failure meaning death.[/quote']

 

For reference, the failed CON roll resulting in death isn't in the rules. There it is just for determiing how Permanent disability effects are.

 

Given that, I take it you're suggesting this as a house rule.

 

It does not suit for what I desired out of the game. I wasn't interested in redefining death in the game system like that and forcing a Saving Throw vs. Death onto the player for damage the system states is not lethal.

 

An easier fix is to just reduce everyone's body or take the suggestion in HERO that everything does x2 body.

 

Neither of those suited (nor does your suggestion) due to the fact that the chance of a lethal rifle hit goes through the roof (as they typically do a d6 extra damage in Hero over the handguns)- not something I wanted to do in the game.

 

I picked the path I did for good reason.

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

He does those things (all but the moving planets) in some of the ones I've read. Marvel doesn't trumpet it as much' date=' but those impressive strength feats do happen. [/quote']

 

As I said, I saw one X-Men issue where Cyclops blew a canyon in a freaking mountain because he was too lazy to have his group climb it or walk around the thing.

 

This doesn't require me to buy his EB up to mountain cracking levels. It requires me to laugh at the bad writing.

 

We all pick what specific things to accept or ignore in the ever changing and generally speaking low quality world of comic books. That means for some of us the STR chart is fine, and for others it worse than simply bad.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

I believe we're still in an interpretive phase here. I'll ask Steve

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?

What is the general rule for mass destroyed by BOD damage?.

For a single target?

+1 body = 2x mass, if you want it completely dead/destroyed total damage must equal or exceed 2x Body.

You yourself indicated that in fact the rules against objects is really a squaring of mass destroyed below 0 BOD.

No, that the rule for affect an area of a wall.

And the rules themselves state a very different impact on humans/characters.

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

Then what do you do with a 9mm?.

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.

They aren't that different. Don't believe the Marvel "100 ton" hype. It's bogus.

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?

The quote from the rules was in regard to the mass of an "object"' date=' in the section on objects, and it also indicated that BOD could be increased according to other conditions..[/quote']

 

To allow for special conditions such as object with redundent systems to name but one example. We're not interested in special conditions, we're interested in a general rule.

 

And we have that general rule.

 

 

Also, it was not stated in regard to inflicting damage - as you yourself indicated, the actual damage of +1 BOD (but only once we get past 0 BOD remaining) is not even a doubling.

 

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

No' date=' you can put a person to negative Body.[/quote']

 

That doesn't kill him. I want him dead if I roll the right hit location. That takes 10+ Body with a Head Hit.

 

 

 

 

If you want to do it that way, that's fine. I prefer to have the chance to use Superman and Thor-level heroes if I want, though. I also don't like the idea of an M-16 shooting through Def 10 materials. Whatever works for you, though.

 

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?

I agree except for "It's about the effect of STR from a man-sized target on a man-sized target. Here the outcome is clear: +5 strength lifts twice as much, and does +1 body that is defined as damaging x2 mass."

 

How is it clear that +1 BOD is damaging x2 mass of a person?

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

That is on the same scale. All you do is flatten out the bell curve. An M-16 ordinarily does 2-12 Body. This makes it 4-9' date=' which is (roughly) the same. Basically, it just assumes that the second die always rolls a 3. It's the same principle behind using a flat stun multiplier of x3 instead of D6-1. It eliminates the freak rolls that require a "bulletproof" character to have much higher defenses than normal.[/quote']

 

Not really the same scale. For one thing 1d6+3 has a complete different result distribution than 2d6 does. It's also off the average by a half point.

 

Besides I can kill someone with a single shot using a M-16 now, with that method of damage I can't. Not being able to is too much of a break from reality. Can't go there.

 

Beside, in concept I see no real gain- I"m adjusting something no matter my choice. Why not adjust the STR and gain in a number of areas instead of adjusting the damage roll and gaining and losing in a single area?

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

You might do what I do' date=' and make half of all dice damage done by military and real-world hardware "Standard Effect". It makes an M-16 1D6+3 instead of 2D6. That means you can lower the Def on an M-16 resistant car to 9 instead of 12. That lets a 20 ton character (50 Str) pound through said car fairly easily (1 Body per punch, 5 per haymaker).[/quote']

 

No.

 

I want things on the same scale as much as possible. It's very much part of why I like HERO in the first place.

Re: Paying points for Falling damage

Personally' date=' I'd regard a brick lifting an otherwise indestructible vehicle high into the air and dropping it to wreck it as good roleplaying and clever tactics; something to be rewarded and not condemned.[/quote']

 

The vehicle in question wasn't indestructible. It's just enough armor to be certain of stoping M16 rifle fire in fact.

 

And as a result I happen to think that someone who can lift 20 tons should be able to pound the thing nicely.

 

 

Fortunately our campaign is blessed with players of precisely that caliber. Concept takes precedence in our game over mere power.

 

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?

Every Avenger should pay for his comm card (for whatever it's worth - likely not a lot).

I typical run him outside the Avengers.

With the Avengers I consider it issued team equipment.

I'd say he generally uses contacts (or just plot points - they don't pay for airline access to be alowed to fly to the UK for a UK adventure either) for the rest - he gets it when he needs it, but when the Red Skull lobs that deadly dust at him, he doesn't whip out his handy dandy gas mask and charge back in.

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

1) It seems to assume the target will attempt no escape or counterattack during the several Phases it takes to execute this type of attack.

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.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to acknowledge that the environment over the long-term is neutral and therefore it makes more sense to call it even with regard to offense and defense?

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?

You would think' date=' at a minimum, Captain America and Daredevil would![/quote']

 

Never read much of Daredevil, but very often issues with Cap would end with the police or shield halling the bad guys off in cuffs.

 

It's a question of style. In the comics the good Captain has fought the good fight and his job is done. He doesn't have to do common clean up, that's for the police for feds.

 

If someone is GMing a game for Captain America, that's how he should handle it to.

 

Now I have seen Cap in the comics pull out a number of items that don't typically appear on his character sheet as done by most people (including me and remember I run him as a character): comm cards, flashlights, disquise kits, gas masks, space suits, scuba gear, etc.

 

None of those are part of his concept, nor do they appear to be hanging off his belt. They may appear as part of a specific story line. And in that is all the difference.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Okay' date=' but given how BODY damage actually affects a target, I don't think you can claim that each 1 BOD of damage inflicted is x2 mass affected. If that were the case, the damage rule would not be that 0 BOD = a human-sized hole and then the hole increases x2 for each -1 BOD.[/quote']

 

No it doesn't fully match the body. It indicates that the effect is actually much more powerful. Increasing the hole at x2 for each body isn't doubling the effect, it's squaring it (assuming a constant value across depth). Doubling it would have only knocked down an increasing line of hexes in the wall (which wouldn't make much sense if the wall was higher then 1 hex).

 

There likely consider it a case of the wall losing major support and gravity taking over from there.

 

 

Meanwhile kicking Dirt around is a pure linear event according to the rules with each additional point of body only gaining one hex each.

 

But I don't think the Designers were worried about matching x2 mass = 1 body in either rule. They were worried about genre and game balance. Genre because high strength characters should do such things with their strength just like they do in comics. And game balance because they haven't brought AoE to do those effects (in the case of the linear dirt example).

 

 

The point at hand however isn't about either case. It's about the effect of STR from a man-sized target on a man-sized target. Here the outcome is clear: +5 strength lifts twice as much, and does +1 body that is defined as damaging x2 mass.

 

For the case under consideration consisting of the MA vs. Brick debate, that should settle that.

 

Edit: Typos

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

And if it does not apply to "large" objects, then where is the "magic" cut off for this formula?

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

Is this really an efficient use of his time' date=' or would he be better off just popping off his Energy Blast against his adversary?[/quote']

 

It would depend upon his write up.

 

For example, megascale on a little flight or a heavy non-combat multiple and his is set.

 

Even through you have to do it non-combat and some actions are disallowed (Grab-Bys, Move-bys, etc) during part of the attempt, that's no big deal. It's a three phase action- phase 1: grab target, phase 2: go flying, phase 3 go hyper-speed and drop object at end of move.

 

Compared to my original example of a Mr. Super Bird vs. Mr. Ant's vehicle, Mr. Bird would have to spend a dozen or so phases of haymakers to reach lesser result (about 1 phase per body, we'll say the vehicle has 12 body just to be simple).

 

Even counting a return trip, he's taken half the time and done more in that the vehicle is completely destroyed as opposed to no longer useable.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Okay' date=' if you find it do let me know ,whether PM or via the thread.[/quote']

 

Found it.

 

Page 447 5th revised.

 

"On the object BODY Table, an object's BODY depends ont its total mass; each doubling of mass is +1 BODY. The GM may wish to increase an objects's BODY based on its size or the materials it is made of."

 

Note it doesn't say increase or decrease due to materials.

 

I will note that seems to fly in the face of the destroying multiple hexes example given in the same book. But it still stands rather well for the concept that, yep- STR is intended to double in power as well as lift for 5 points.

 

Edit: I believe I know why it doesn't match the example. It's a way of controlling the fact that the character hasn't bought AE for his attack, but is still due some blow through because of his overwhelming power.

 

Edit: Note I don't think one should make character pay for using falling damage, but then again I think the problem is mosting a creation of the lift progression. Alter the lift progression by house rule and the tactic becomes far less useful (as well as matching some non-DC genres better anyway).

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

But...those are what Utility Belt Multipowers are for.... I really don't understand why all heroes don't carry them. Cops do (flash light' date=' handcuffs, mace, gun, nightstick).[/quote']

 

Because they are key to the police officer character concept, and not to the concept of most heroes.

 

 

At least I haven't seen anyone attempt to charge players for the construction of their cereal bowl the use for their morning wheaties yet.