Fox1

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? I went looking for a cite after the post as I was concerned that I think have been living in an old edition back when each level of Density Increase granted +1 Body. That's no longer the case so I'll have to do some looking. In the meantime I withdraw the comment in respect to 5th edition revised.

Re: simulating "Whirlwind Attack"

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Ok, I'm done. There is no point talking to someone who is incapable of listening and thinking. I found the ignore option on this board, and life is good.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Granted. But I can't believe that anyone would consider a MA's punch equaling the punch of someone with the strength of 40 men anything but a major suspension of Disbelief issue. Saying it's ok due to genre, fine. Saying it's ok due to game balance, fine. Those I can grasp. But because it *seems* right to them? There's some major oddness going down with how that person judges their reality. And the whole question of maybe damage doesn't relate to strength in HERO System. Let's put that to bed right now. Every 5 points of strength does one additional point of body on average. The rules specifically state that each point of body destroyed doubles the destroyed mass.

Re: simulating "Whirlwind Attack" AoE of effect with hole and selective

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Oh boy. Ok, need something besides a simple summary- here: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Fackler/wrong.html Here, I'll copy a section for those who don't want to follow the link and read the whole thing: "Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics." ... "The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example). " Me again, he leaves out wasted energy as the bullet exits the other side. "Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation). " Can we put this to bed yet?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? It is a simple means, I'll grant you that. If being simple is more important to you than being right, go for it. All I know is that I used more rational concepts backed my modern theory and the result was vastly different in game values and more realistic (as measured in moving toward realism, nothing else) than those HERO came up with. I didn't have to cheat on the .45 ACP, .50 AE or .45 Long Colt to make them function as expected compared to other weapons- they just worked. It was far more complex. And I don't think it carries over to any other part of the game. And it does alter game play as well. So it's not a path I suggest everyone take unless you're looking for some of the same things I was. All I want out of this is to dispell or at least instill some doubts about some common myths. I've seen too many cases where people think simple game rules actually reflect reality, and I'd like to at least slow that down when it appears. In this thread for example, I find it amazing to see people actually claim that a trained martial artist can hit with the force of a man dozens of times his strength. But I've been more focused on this side of the debate and left that for others.

Re: Extra Extra: Is 5ER actually bullet proof

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Actually I can guess at what they were up to. They wanted to use x2 something for each DC. HERO System was first made in the era of the RII (Relative Incapacitation Index) when some researchers sadly did think KE directly determined results on living targets. After that, they did the same thing I did in my work which appears on my website. Made a progression and selected a starting point (which would determine the following on break points) it so that most weapons fell into the right slot on it. Time passed (and passes still), and they noted that some of the weapons just didn't work as one would expect. The .45 ACP didn't live up to it's legend and the .50 AE didn't live up to it's new billing. So they cheated. Poor guys.

Re: Extra Extra: Is 5ER actually bullet proof Wouldn't work. Unlike Soyant Green, FRED isn't people

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Ah the joys of break points. I wonder at your sources .22 LR, that seem to be a way under-powered load. I also notice that the .50 AE doesn't fit your progression. Counting the .45 ACP, I see three weapons that don't fit of the few that I selected. Makes me wonder just what they were up to. Edit: Oh, add the 45 Long Colt in there. It doesn't fit either. I'll stop now.

Re: House Rules? I number of people have mentioned this house rule reversing flash back to 4th edition. I found this change in 5th edition one of the sensible ones. What is the reasoning behind changing it back?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? Hmm... I thought I'd check a few of the handguns and see the result. For those interested, I just selected the same ones that appear on my own website in my house rule HERO values. That is, weapons I considered of interest, not ones selected to prove a point. After some math (using common loads for the weapons) and referencing the 5th Edition Revisied I find: Weapon KE Damage Stun Mod 22 Long Rifle 164 1d6-1 0 380 ACP 269 1d6 0 9mm Makarov 382 1d6+1 0 9mm Parabellum 476 1d6+1 0 38 Special 322 1d6 0 357 Magnum 1032 1 1/2d6 0 45 ACP 492 2d6-1 1 44 Magnum 1606 2d6 1 50 AE 2072 2d6+1 1 The 44 Mag has over 4x the energy, but only 1 DC over the 45 ACP. It only has a 60% energy advantage over the .357, but gains +1 DC and a +1 stun mod. The 50 AE gets +1 DC over the 44 mag for only a 25% energy increase, and gets a +2 DC edge for doubling the energy of the .357 Mag. The 9mm Makarov is closer in energy to the .380, but yet does the same damage as the 9mm Parabellum. It's not looking good for your rule of thumb here. Edit: It doesn't look like I can get the table to format right. Sorry for the reading problem guys, at least it's a small table.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Is Punisher the problem?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? No it doesn't. Both the 9mm and the 45 ACP have almost the same KE, yet in the core rule book the damage is 1d6+1 and 2d6-1 with a +1 Stun mod respectively. Or in Active point terms: 9mm is 20 points while the .45 is 31 points (25 without it's advantage). I haven't check other values, but these two represent the two most common semi-auto pistols in the world (if the .40 S&W hasn't changed that in recent years).

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? The question I phrased wasn't about the Batmobile, it was about Mr. Ant's Super Car. It doesn't have defense systems that would work on someone who lifted it up from underneath, behind, or the sides. Or even from the front for that matter. It's just a fast tunneler with a 12 def. Nor do all versions of the Batmobile have such defenses for that matter. Answers like this (let's make it impractical by designing all our vehicle with close in defense systems) to the basic problem or attempts to call require one to buy what the rules already specific as possible actions (until the rules for lift and flight) are just dodges. They don't answer the real problem. People like myself don't react well to attempts to weasel around a problem. We like solutions. In my case I re-wrote the STR table so that a haymaker from a 20 ton STR character would do 18d6. Problem solved and I get to match my chosen genre of Marvel comics instead of DC as well. There are still problem, but now they are below my radar and play style. And getting things below a individual group's radar was the point of my point.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? This is of course true. It's also true that there are serious limits to our knowledge of how real world damage functions in the first place. It's rather hard to make game rules for something that no expert in the real world can put solid numbers on. So when people raise questions of realism, generally what they are trying to prevent is one of two things. 1. The "Man that just isn't right" reaction In game rules it's not uncommon for things to be wrong compared to what we know about the real world. If a player happens to know that fact and the problem is a major in your face mechanic- it can wreck one's enjoyment of the game. It's worth noting that some of the "that just isn't right moments" may actually be genre. Just because Aquaman was on the JLA in Superfriends doesn't mean that everyone playing a superhero game thinks that was a good or valid idea. Heck, the very idea is a joke to many in that hobby. Others may think the whole boy wonder thing is the nearly the last decision that a "Dark Knight" of the street would make. And so on. My group has enough of these types of reactions to common comic tropes that we took to calling our superhero campaign Real World Comics as we did away with them. In this case, some people have noticed that the Strength chart increases lift at a such a vast rate that it gives them a "that just isn't right moment" because it allows vastly weaker in real terms characters to do equal or near equal damage. Appeals to the comic genre won't would as a counter to that- they think the idea is silly in the game and likely silly in the comic a well. In one of the two major comic lines in fact, the whole STR chart is out of whack in the first place (Marvel caps their main characters at a 100 ton scale). Appeals to physics could change their mind (i.e., proving that yes it would actually work that way in the real world). Thing is, no one is going to manage that trick in this case. Or rather they are not going to do it without more backing than the flawed Aristotle logic that's been used so far. Such a thing takes facts and proof- not mind experiments and questions. 2. That mechanic produces unrealistic and/or non-genre tactics Some don't care about the mechanics or rules as such, but rather are more concerned with how their use affects actual decisions in play. The classic example is an AD&D Fighter of say 10th level who has just been threatened by an archer on a rise. In AD&D it very reasonable mechanically to just charge the archer- 1d6 damage isnt' significant except in special cases. Some people don't like that, they'd rather the Fighter ducked for cover from the dangerous arrow instead. In AD&D's case, it's time for a different game system or some major house rules. The strength question before us in this thread also has an impact here. If I want Mr. Strong Bird to punch out the Mr Ant's Super Car with a Def of 12 using his 20 ton lift strength (a mere 9 1/2 dice in HERO with say +4d6 for haymaker), I may be disappointed when he determines that it's much easier and quicker to just carry it high in the air and drop it instead for up to 30d6 damage. And so on. People who claim either of the two points above as problems in HERO are stating that they are having problem giving their own expectations and desires. You really can't debate their expectations and desires. They aren't really making claims about how others view things. After all there are those who like Aquaman and others who would love to see Batman have two boy wonders. Mostly they are feeling out how other people react to an issue that's caused them some concern and seening if anyone can often them a solution.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? More seriously, it does vary greatly. Today in Iraq the survival rate is something around 90%. Here's a link to the numbers by month: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm. Compared to this to only the Civil War with a 43% survival rate: http://www.ehistory.com/uscw/features/medicine/cwsurgeon/statistics.cfm Of course Killed and Wounded mean many things from many causes and as such those number don't represent only gunshots injuries. Still, striking isn't it?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what? I apologize. An over-reaction on my part because of past encounters. I meant nothing personal towards you. You actually seem quite reasonable.

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?