Fox1

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

I've never had the problem you describe. Using the hit location chart for killing attacks at all power levels has always worked quite well for me. I've never had any complaints about bricks feeling like they're a mockery' date=' nor have the high DEX characters been the high damage characters.[/quote']

 

 

I have never experienced it either. Indeed if there is any leaning at all, the reverse seems to be the case if only slightly.

 

I think it extremely likely the described problem has another source than the difference between KA and normal attacks.

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

Whilst this may be 'realistic'' date=' HERO is primarily designed with an eye to balance, and this throws the balance out by quite a ways.[/quote']

 

If you're looking for balance in HERO, you're looking in the wrong place. Rather you should look to your own use of the system.

 

HERO's 'balance' for KA vs. EB vs. Stun only attacks is based upon one simple concept- that it is better not to kill than it is to kill. If that for some reason is not the case in your campaign, you're in for some serious rule changes to force HERO to balance.

 

A wasted effort IMO, you'll never really get there except by accepting an illusion of balance someway along the way. One may as well just go with the default.

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

Not necessarily. There are plenty of genre examples of grabbing someone's head and twisting it to break the neck' date=' or hitting someone so hard you kill them. Those things are difficult to emulate with normal damage.[/quote']

 

You have the joint break actions with martial arts.

 

If you insist, you could easily make a normal killing attack strike/grab for everyone much like a haymaker is the normal guy's option for Offensive Martial Strike.

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...

Fox1... what is this "KE" you keep refering to' date=' without explaining? "Kinetic Energy"?[/quote']

 

Yep.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

If you are shooting through two walls, you are creating two holes. Having two holes in two walls is a lot different than having one hole in a wall twice as thick, game-effects-wise.

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...

Completely skipping the fact that I really don't buy "+1 BODY equals x2 damage" - since it means that an attack that beats Defences by 2 pts actually does three times as much damage as is needed to get through the Defenses; one point is twice what is needed' date=' and half of that is taken up by the Defences, and two points is.... well, you see what I mean, right?[/quote']

 

No, as the definition of the system indicates that this is exactly what should be happening.

 

My real complaint is with the "making a man-sized hole in something" concept. Sure, if you buy the "+1 BODY equals x2 damage" philosophy, it makes sense. But I really don't like the idea of my Sonic Shatterer punching a hole through a high-rise simply because I wanted to hit someone behind a wall. It seems too extreme.

 

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...

As soon as you say "double thinkness = +X BODY/DEF" you run into problem. If it takes 10 BODY damage to penetrate a wall' date=' what does it take to penetrate two walls that aren't flush against each other? 10 for the first wall and 10 for the second, 20 BODY. But if the walls are flush against each other, then you've got a wall twice as thick, so it only takes 12 BODY (or whatever you decide to add.[/quote']

 

Depending upon the attack method, that's what it should take.

 

 

And the "Real Weapon" limitation (and Beam Attack, as previously mentioned) can be used to prevent guns et al. from making man-sized bullet holes.

 

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...

However' date=' it doesn't work in real world terms because as materials get thicker their DEF can go up too, at least against certain types of damage. [/quote']

 

This is indeed the case, and is key to why you can armor vehicles against attacks.

 

"This occurs under conditions where the plate material is being pushed out the plate back and the material at the plate back is resisting that motion in addition to the resistance from the armor material at the front and middle of the plate - this punching-out is either as a cylindrical or conical plug sheared around the edge of the hole and pushed straight back like a cork from a bottle or as full-plate-thickness triangular flaps or teeth called "petals" in a ring around the forming hole that are being torn open at the center of the impact site and bent outward in all directions around the edge of the hole. "

 

Quoted from http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1.html

 

So HERO is hosed from square one, as far as penetration of Walls and the like by conventional shells go anyway. It shouldn't be a DEF + varying amounts of BODY depending upon thickness and material, but should instead just be a DEF value.

 

There's also a problem in that the Wall rules are intended for destroying walls, not penetrating them. Sadly the rules make define no different between the two although it would be simple enough to do so.

 

Now that I've figured out why HERO is screwed, I can develop a good house rule system to get around it.

 

As a half aside I think that some of the higher DEF values for materials are far too high. I may be wrong.

 

You may well be correct.

Re: Logic behind Object Defense...

DEF doesn't increase based on mass. BODY does.

 

DEF is based on the material in question. It's no more difficult to damage a big piece of wood than it is a smaller piece of wood. It's more difficult to destroy the bigger piece, because it has more BODY to overcome.

 

And that holds. One level of Growth (for example) gives you +1 BODY and 2x mass.

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...

The answer I have is one that nobody ever likes to hear: It's just a game. If you don't like a rule' date=' change it. Generally, it's the way it is because many years of play have proven it's the best approach; That doesn't stop me from changing anything I don't think works.[/quote']

 

I'm more than willing to change a rule, or even dump a game I don't like. That isn't the question I put forth.

 

The question is: Is my logic correct on this point? Is there a disconnect between how damage is rated and how Def for walls is determined?

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...

Well, Fox1, it's fairly simple. Most minerals (i.e., stone and metal) have a denser molecular structure than wood... and also, cured wood -- wood that's not green -- is pretty brittle. Not brittle after the fashion of, say, tree bark, but similar.

 

These characteristics -- less density, more brittleness, as well as the fact that wood is biological in nature and has a grain -- all contribute. Thus, a martial artist can break a board of wood, but not a sheet of metal or block of stone of equal dimensions. Bricks can be broken, but they are porous (less dense) and quite brittle. Metal is more malleable and dense, and so is stone (though usually not as malleable as metal).

 

Also, some metals are just structurally superior to other materials simply by virtue of their atomic structure -- say, steel, titanium alloy, etcetera.

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

Cap could still kick Batman's butt...

 

Sorry, I'll be good now.

 

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

True' date=' but whether or not the plot makes you want to gouge out your eyes with a dull spoon doesn't really count for these kinds of "Who'd Win?" discussions [/quote']

 

Actually the "Who'd Win?" discussions make me want to gouge my eyes out. The bad writing just made me give up on comics.

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

The fact that you (and a lot of other fans) think Secret Wars sucked doesn't change that.

Fame passes, but bad writing is forever.

Re: SPD, DEX, and Movement

I'm sure this has come up before. Just want to see what everyone else thinks....

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

Certain of his followers are even worse' date=' imo. [/quote']

 

Sadly a condition that can be found anywhere on any subject.

 

Ideally you wouldn't have followers. The science would be presented and that would be the end of the subject. All the unknowns however provide room for what can perhaps be called "faith-based ballistics".

 

IIRC, Dr. Fackler has decided that "Temporary cavity" does NOTHING, but imo a more accurate description would be "Is unpredictable at best"

 

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.

 

 

I actually gave up on what was a pretty good website because the Facklerites were so derogatory to anyone who questioned their pronouncements.

 

Open forum websites attract those sorts.

 

 

EDIT: I have actually met the men behind the "blended metal bullets." I admit to not being sold on them for general purpose, but I have a hard time questioning the fact that they WILL penetrate armor, then cause really significant tissue disruption. I think my biggest worry about them is that I agree the claim that "the temperature of the target affects their performance" makes NO logical sense.

 

 

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...

Now I could lower the boom and have all of the supposed heroes become hunted by UNTIL' date=' PRIMUS, and all the major heroes, [/quote']

 

This never works.

 

Time to let your players know that their approach to things is not what your looking for and that you're seeking another group unless they offer something different quickly. In any event, close down that campaign and those characters- it needs to be started over even if the same players express a desire to try again.

Re: Pistol Damage Class By Caliber

Dr Fackler has done some Great research. He has imo also become convinced that there is ONLY one way to think.

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

If I had 3 2-BODY wounds would I take 3x1d6 bleeding or 2d6 bleeding? And these dice represent STUN lost unless a 6 is rolled, correct?

You'd take 3x1d6 in bleeding and the dice do represent STUN unless a 6 is rolled.

Death occurs:

1. When a vital location is destroyed (x2 BODY to a location)

2. When BODY lost to bleeding equal BODY

 

Maiming occurs:

1. When a location suffers x2 BODY in a single hit, otherwise it is impaired at > BODY/2, and disabled at > BODY.

Correct.

However, limbs/extremities would rarely if ever be destroyed by gunfire, which is certainly more cinematic than real.

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.

2. Shotguns. Are they on another list somewhere? Grenades as well, or as they are in the system are they okay?

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.