Fox1

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them? I'm fine with them as is. Using the hit location rules for the STUN multiple brings the stun lotto under control nicely IMO. If I were to change them, I'd also do a straight EB cost rate with a +0 advantage to represent the need for resistant defenses. Not killing people has always be considered a even trade off in HERO for reduced damage effectiveness.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... In real world terms using many of the weapons of today... It varies. Assuming a at least some space between the walls... Most KE penetrators will deform upon impact with the first wall or would at least twist after exiting and thus may whack sideways into the second wall and thus 'unfocus' its energy on a single point of penetration. HEAT attacks and the like will burn through the first wall and then lose its focused jet before hitting the second. In short, it would likely be worse than even penetrating two different DEF/Boday groups. Energy weapons like lasers and the like however wouldn't care all that much although it would have to build to a good melting point again on the second wall. Depending upon the power levels that may not mean that much. This btw is the reason for spaced armor design.

Re: OIF vs Mec (Vehicle) Either will work, there how however two main differences that you need to be careful of. First the easy one. The point costs will vary between the two because of the 5:1 break you get for vehicles. On the other hand you have to pay for some stuff that's assumed with a character. Depending upon the point totals for your game, this may be a issue. Second and most important- damage is resolved against each differently. A character in a vehicle won't be taking stun damage unless an attack breaches the armor on the vehicle and even then only when he's rolled up on the hit location. That means that to take him out, you're going to have to seriously damage the suit. This may or may not be genre. And that last point should determine which option you go with. Do you expect to see damaged components and bleeding crew when attacks hit (gritty sci-fi), or do you expect to be able to whack them silly without serious injury to person or even suit (like in many superhero settings). How you answer that question should determine your decision. Playtest it first btw and see for yourself how it works.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... Indeed, the BODY should just increase by +1 per thickness as a barrier. If a chararcter wants to blow a man sized shape in it, then he can apply a 'double' the body rule himself. Or use an AE/EX.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... It's doing more than that, or rather the current rules are doing more than that. It's preventing them from making holes at all when they should be.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... You may well be correct.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... That's true in HERO for the general case, but it's not true in the specific case of projectile penetration against walls for damage to something on the other side. There the wall's BODY acts exactly the same as DEF. And increases at a different progression in so doing. And that may be the whole problem... The rules are simply inconsistent.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... Ok, looking into this and taking some *very* general formulas based upon WWII naval gunfire against faceharded steel, and applying them we get the following relationships: 1. All else being equal (which it can't be, but let's assume it anyway), doubling the momentum of a projectile will sort of double the penetration. 2. All else being equal (which it can't be, but let's assume it anyway), increasing the KE by 4x will double the penetration. So... In HERO, it appears the Wall defense is based upon KE (+2 Def per doubling), however damage from STR is base upon momentum (+1 Body per doubling). Any flaws in my logic?

Re: Logic behind Object Defense... This I all understand. It almost goes without saying. What confusing me however is the way HERO approached it. Rather than just alter the def value for a reference thickness, it also altered the relationship of power vs. thickness. And did so in a way which breaks the 2x progression. So for those who understand metal penetration better than I, does it take 4x the power to break 2x the thickness or something similar to that?

I was playing with armor values based upon thickness (in prep for doing some house rules to make vehicles more interesting) and ran into an old HERO concept that caused me to pause. The basic concept in HERO is that 5 points equal 2x real world effect (older editions flatly stated this). Five points gives 1d6 damage which does 1 body on average or standard effect. Fine so far, if too steep for my own tastes. Now on the wall side of things, if it's made of wood the relationship holds, with every 2x thickness giving +1 Def. If however the wall is stone or metal, the relationship is changed, with every 2x thickness giving +2 Def. What this means in concept that the power requirement to break a wood wall of 2x is 2x while the requirement against stone/metal is 4x. Why the difference? Is this based upon reality in some odd way, or is this just a game construction? Thoughts?

Re: Dr. Doom vs Iron Man Now I want to gouge someone else's eyes out... Not for saying Cap would win, but for reminding me most people think he would lose...

Re: Dr. Doom vs Iron Man

Re: A Percentile Analysis of Relative OCV I think it's off. 18 isn't a 6% chance, it's 1 in 216, as is a three. Didn't check the other numbers.

Re: Dr. Doom vs Iron Man Fame passes, but bad writing is forever.

Re: SPD, DEX, and Movement The points don't matter. That's right, if the points were a national military, they'd be Canada.

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber I have to side with him as far as a straight up measure of physical damage goes. I wonder however if significant temporary cavity effects make the strike more noticeable at some level, even if only psychological. And of course there are parts of the body that do react very badly to hydrostatic pressure, even if it's a small total percentage. Open forum websites attract those sorts. Right now, I've put them in the "unknown real world function" category. The only information I've seen on them is from the company marketing them, and I've learned to be very skeptical of what are basically sale pitches long ago. The look to be impressive, but without knowing more details about how they actuall function and under what limits- I'm not going to go out on a limb and make any guesses.

Re: Ever have one of those moments when...

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber That would have more weight IF there were any other research results that indicated another approach. That said, he may have been at the top of the world for too long. I'm uncertain of the details, but it seems he used seriously flawed conditions when tested the new blended metal bullets (i.e., he used his standard methods to test a weapon designed to operate in a radically new way). The field (like most fields) could use new blood and a little shake up. I'm sure it will happen. However in the meantime, this is the best work out there. It's what I'll use.

Re: Big guns and targeting (sort of a math question) The old HERO book Golden Age of Champions used a different method, which was basically an offensive version of the concentration limit. I forget the name they tagged on it, but it was intended to reflect slow transverse and elevation- but increased weapon stability. In 5th edition terms it would halve your base OCV and provide increased RMods. Combined with the size modifiers of suitable targets (other vehicles, hexes, etc.), it provided a rather solid simulation of the effect for such a simple approach.

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber You'd take 3x1d6 in bleeding and the dice do represent STUN unless a 6 is rolled. Correct. True enough. About the only way you'd lose a limb to normal range weapons is from bleeding loss. Each point of Body from bleeding equals one point on the cumulative Bleeding Track and increases the individual wound by a point. Basically that means you'd have to take a > BODY hit in the limbs, and then bleed for enough damage to reach 2x the limb so it 'dies', but not enough to equal your total BODY on the bleeding track so you don't. Much rarer than reality. But this is intended for heroic action adventure after all. If I was concerned about it, I would likely enforce the CON roll rules for *recovering* from Disables, and put more teeth into them at that. Slug use the normal conversion rules with the 'damage reduced by range' limit. A 3/4" hunk of lead hurling at down range at 1600 fps will ruin your day. I've been using the rules for Shotguns shot and Explosives given in Golden Age of Champions, Here there be Tigers, and The Armory from the old days. I did up the damage a little (00 shot for example does a base of 2d6K per pellet 'group'), but everything else was the same. If you're unaware of the rules from those old books, I can detail them for you. In meantime I'll assume you know about them. The reason these weapons aren't up on the website currently is that I'm giving very serious thought to changing it. There are a lot of good things about those old rules but one major bad thing. It takes an exceptionally long time to resolve as you're basically rolling the results of 4 or more damaging attacks per 'hit'. Things really get out of hand if your grenade lands where it would injury four or five characters. So it's due for a change. Just trying to decided upon the best method.