TheRealDeal
-
Posts
99 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TheRealDeal
-
-
Good Advice, thanks. It turns out in this case I am the GM:) My player is playing a defender type (for a heroic game, fantasy hero type, with an anime feel) who has a BAS (Big Ass Shield) and I wanted to let him have a power that lets him always have a chance to block attacks at him. He is only a SPD 3 (as are all the PCs) and already has a limit on 1 of his speeds of "Must be used for Defense". So it is not a high power game. Each PC has some special thing, and his is defense. So I wanted to give him the fun ability to always have a choice to block. Even though this would last the whole Turn, once he misses (and he suffers a cumulative -2 per block) it ends for the Turn. If you think it is too much, I could keep the limit that if he chooses to block with this power he cannot also use another defense that Segment. I was going to allow him to use this and if it failed use one of his actual Phases to abort if he wanted. But perhaps that is a bit much, and I can always add that on later if it seems needed.
So given that, I have no problem with allowing him to use it, but just wanted to get feedback on how to build it. I like having the Martial Block enhanced option as a lower point version, and I think the Deflection option is also an idea for a higher point option.
Killer Shrike, why would it need to be Uncontrolled? Am I missing something?
-
Thanks, this is great Lucius. I would not need Uncontrolled, since I do not want this defender blocking while stunned or whatever, but would instead want Only Costs END to Activate (+1/4). So I would lose the -1/2 END to Maintain. If you could, can you remove Uncontrolled and add in Costs END only to Activate instead and then drop the Full END Cost -1/2 and let me know what you get? I would try to extrapolate, but I cannot figure how the builder got 19 APs with those advantages and such as I only see +1.25 total advantages and I can only get 18 or 21 APs if the base cost was 8 or 9 respectively. Not sure where the 19 comes from.Working this up in Hero Designer it costs 19 ptsMartial Block: 1/2 Phase, +2 OCV, +2 DCV, Block, Abort, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset; +1/4), Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2) (19 Active Points); Costs END To Maintain (Full END Cost; -1/2)
Lucius Alexander
The palindromedary and I turned to go along the block
-
Block normally lasts until your next phase, taking a cumulative -2 for each block you make until then. I want a power that does just that, but is a free action and only clears at the end of each Turn not after each phase. So with this power, a defender could Block (free action) any attack that allows a block, each one past the first taking the usual -2, and like with Block once you miss the power ends for that Turn.
You could still take other defensive actions with this power in use, thus you could Block with this power and still Block or Dodge with a normal Abort or whatever. This power would be another layer of defense to simulate a defender who always reacts to attacks. All the restrictions of Block apply to this power, except that it does not prevent the use of other defense actions.
Anyone have an easy way to make this?
-
Honestly, was it really her eyes that distracted you:)
-
Do they still have internal organs? If they are just some kind of animated comic character, perhaps build them as an Automation, without the Does Not Bleed power, and include, Bleeds Ink instead.
If they have internal organs, then it sounds like the Ink is just a medium through which the creative power of the comic book writer gives them life. So once the Ink runs out of them, they die. That means you need to decide if our world's ink is really helpful as a "blood transfusion" for them, as it sounds like the Ink they have must be special Ink, so just any ink would not work. Perhaps they must act like vampires and drain Ink from other's like themselves to "heal", otherwise they can only heal at some rate you decide, unless you just make it the usual REC in BODY per Month think and say they naturally regain Ink loss (BODY Damage) slowly as their writer writes new material.
This could lead to ideas like, "your writer got laid off because you are not interesting enough to sell papers, which means you will not recover BODY naturally anymore." This could lead to them being forced to act more heroically to keep their writer employed. If they are so heroic and make it so their writer really gets promoted and writes more about them, perhaps they gain new powers and even Regeneration or whatever.
Maybe they have to stop their writer from being killed as well, since their writer is their life:) Or perhaps they find that the printed word is slowly dying and electronic books and the like are taking over, making them obsolete. This would mean they perhaps either need to find a way to sabotage modern technology in this way, or better, find a way to upgrade, from Ink to Digital! Instead of Ink they have Bits now, and Bleed Data not Ink. You could make it so those who inflict the damage absorb this Data loss and gain memories of this character, which perhaps he has to steal away from them to heal it back or whatever. The data loss could even mean loss of some powers or memories. Lots of interesting ideas for this.
-
Perhaps just build the Brick attacks to simulate this? So make their Punch have Armor Piercing or Penetrating. Or a Linked Drain vs. PD to show their last blow made the target rather tender in that area and it will take time for them to recover (Drain fade rate).
-
Say I take a Phase on Segment 12, and therefore cannot Abort during this Segment. A foe does a Haymaker on me and I would like to Abort to a defense but cannot since I acted this Segment. Then on Phase 1 in the next Turn his Haymaker Resolves. Can I now Abort before he makes it since it is now Segment 1? Or did I have to Abort when he first declared the Haymaker?
-
While the master may decide to play it more defensive when doing this, I think Killer Shrike is right, this is done as a show of skill by the master. Why do you fight with one hand tied behind you? To show you can suffer this disadvantage and yet still kick the butt of the one you are challenging. So since you should be suffering some disadvantage doing this (otherwise the entire idea is lost, you only do this because you do suffer something from it, otherwise you choose some other disadvantage if this one does not really hinder you. You are, after all, trying to prove a point, that you are so good that even when hindered you can still beat your rivals).Seems like a "SFX" for a "master" just not using all combat skill levels available to them.Actually, it seems to me it's more of an example of the master using his superior levels defensively and not using his full attack capabilities.
If you somehow suffer nothing from having only 1 hand, I suppose you could be trying to be sneaky and pretent it hinders you, but I think this question is asking about the case where a real master wants to self hinder and prove his skill this way.
I would impose some penalty, say a -2 OCV at least and perhaps -1 DC as well. Or perhaps simply say the master must use 2 skill levels (thus losing them) to overcome this one handed penalty.
-
You may have misunderstood my probably overcomplex attempt at a method to deal with your dilemma.Oh. I would have thought the Impenetrable Defense had to be high enough to stopp the Normal Damage of the attack by itself, just needing enough to match the BODY like seems kind of raw deal compared to Armor Piercing vs. Hardened given that Penetrating is twice as expensive.Normally, for a given Defense (PD, ED, MD, etc), you have 2 types, Normal and Resistant. You must buy the Impenetrable advantage for ALL of the Normal part of that defense (we will stick with PD here since it was your defense in question, but this applies to ED or any other) for ANY of that defense to be Impenetrable. You cannot, say, buy some fraction of it with the advantage, it is all or nothing. However, since you can buy Resistant for the same defense category as well as Normal, you can choose to legally buy the Impenetrable advantage only on 1 of those 2 types, leaving the other one alone. You do not need to have it on both types within a single defense category (the PD category in your case).
This leads to your issue, if you have it only on 1 of the 2 types, what do you do?
The rules could have said you must buy it on both types to have it at all, this would be the simple fix, but it would make it hard to simulate Body Armor with this advantage, since the one wearing it does not have Impenetrable on their Normal defenses, just on the Body Armor part. I suppose you could say that the Body Armor makes your Normal defenses tougher as well by providing rigid protection, or any other way to spin it if you did require this, but the standard rules do not require it.
So if you have a case where someone has the 2 types of defense (Normal and Resistant) but only 1 of them is Impenetrable, i was trying to offer 2 possible ways out.
1) Just look at the Penetrating Attack's BODY dice result (in the case of a Normal Attack this is the actual BODY it does as well, in the case of a Killing Attack it is the BODY of the dice rolled, a value normally not calculated for Killing Attacks, but only for Penetrating ones). Compare this against ONLY the defense with Impenetrable on it. If that defense blocks all of the BODY, then Penetrating does nothing. Whatever BODY it does not block, ends up being the Penetrating effect that gets through. This is STUN for a Normal Attack and BODY for a Killing Attack.
Ex 1: PD 30, rPD 5 (Impen on the rPD only) vs. 10d6 N (Pen), rolled 10 BODY and 35 STUN. Compare the 10 BODY against only the 5 rPD since it is the only part that is Impenetrable, and you see it only blocks 5 of the BODY, so 5 gets through, this means the attack deals 5 STUN to the target.
Ex 2: PD 15, rPD 20 (Impen on the rPD only) vs. 10d6 N (Pen), rolled 10 BODY and 35 STUN. Compare the 10 BODY against only the 20 rPD since it is the only part that is Impenetrable, and you see it blocks All 10 of the BODY, so nothing gets through, this means the attack deals no STUN to the target.
Ex 3: PD 20 (Impen only on the PD), rPD 15 vs. 3d6+1 K (Pen), rolled a 3, 4, and 6 on the 3d6 for a total of 13+1=14 killing Body and say we rolled 2 on the Stun x for 28 STUN. The BODY of this attack is 4 (1 for the 3, 1 for the 4, 2 for the 6, and I think 0 for the +1, but if I am wrong, it does not matter for this example). So you compare this BODY of 4 against the only defense that is Impenetrable, which in this case is only the 20 PD. Since this 20 PD cannot stop ANY Body of a Killing Attack, ALL 4 of this Killing BODY gets through, so the target suffers 4 BODY and because you always suffer 1 STUN per BODY, they suffer 4 STUN also.
2) My other idea was just to say you compare the 2 defense types that apply against the BODY of the attack in question. If the Active Points in the Defense with Impenetrable is at least half the total AP of the applicable types in that Defense Category, then that entire defense ignores All Penetrating attacks, no need for the extra math required in Version 1.
Ex 1: PD 30, rPD 5 (Impen on the rPD only).
Against Normal Attacks, both types resist BODY, so the Impen defense (the 5 rPD) has 9 Active Points (7 base plus +1/4 from Impenetrable = 9 APs) while the 30 PD has 30 APs. The total APs that apply would be 39. The Impen defense has 9/39 = about 25% of the total APs, not enough to meet the half or more, so this defender suffers the full effect of all penetrating Normal Attacks, it is as if his meagre 5 rPD Impen advantage does not exist.
Against Killing Attacks, only the 5 rPD counts to resist BODY, so it has 9/9 = 100% of the applicable APs, thus it fully negates the Penetrating advantage of all Killing Attacks.
Ex 2: PD 15, rPD 20 (Impen on the rPD only)
Against Normal Attacks, both types resist BODY, so the Impen defense (the 20 rPD) has 37 Active Points (30 base plus +1/4 from Impenetrable = 37 APs) while the 15 PD has 15 APs. The total APs that apply would be 52. The Impen defense has 37/52 = about 60% of the total APs, enough to meet the half or more, so this defender ignores the penetrating advantage from all penetrating Normal Attacks.
Against Killing Attacks, only the 20 rPD counts to resist BODY, so it has 37/37 = 100% of the applicable APs, thus it fully negates the Penetrating advantage of all Killing Attacks as well. This in this example, the defender ignores Penetrating from all attack types against his PD.
Ex 3: PD 20 (Impen only on the PD), rPD 15
Against Normal Attacks, both types resist BODY, so the Impen defense (the 20 PD) has 25 Active Points (20 base plus +1/4 from Impenetrable = 25 APs) while the 15 rPD has 22 APs. The total APs that apply would be 47. The Impen defense has 25/47 = about 50% of the total APs, just enough to meet the half or more, so this defender ignores the penetrating advantage of all penetrating Normal Attacks.
Against Killing Attacks, only the 5 rPD counts to resist BODY, since it is not Impen, the Impen defense in this case has 0/22 = 0% of the applicable APs, thus all penetrating killing attacks have their full effect against them.
The advantage of Version 2 above is that you will know ahead of time (you only calculate this once and record it) what type of penetrating attacks will affect you, it is all or nothing, no need for extra in game math.
Version 1 above is probably my personal choice, but requires more in game math.
I suppose you could also just go hardline and say you must buy Impenetrable for ALL types (both Normal and Resistant) in a given Category (PD, ED, etc) to get this advantage at all. A true all or nothing. This makes Penetrating Attacks more powerful in that defending against them is more expensive on average.
Larry
-
A rule of thumb would be to ask: Does the Defense with Impenetrable by itself stop ALL the BODY, if yes, then assume it negates the Penetrating advantage. If not, then whatever BODY gets through that defense, becomes the Penetrating STUN that the target takes. In your case, the defender clearly has an overwhelming defense against the BODY damage with his Impenetrable defenses, so he takes nothing.
Example: Defender has 30 PD and 5 rPD (Impenetrable). In this case, the 5 rPD only blocks 5 of the BODY of the above attack, so in this example, I would say the target suffers 5 STUN from the 5 BODY not blocked.
If you do not like that this allows a defender to have a low defense with Impenetrable that negates the advantage in most cases, then you can make perhaps an even simpler rule, that says for a Defense (PD, ED, MD, PD, etc) to count as having Impenetrable against any attack against it, the Impenetrable advantage must apply to at least half of the total Active Points in that defense capable of resisting the BODY of the attack in question.
For example, against a Normal Attack, since All Defenses resist the BODY of Normal Attacks, you only get the Impenetrable advantage if at least half of the Active Points in your defenses for that area (PD in this example) have the advantage applied to them. So your example qualifies, since 20 rPD (30 APs) is more than half of the total (15 AP for PD and 30 for the 20 rPD a total of 45 APs in PD defenses). However, my example, where the Impenetrable advantage only applied to the 5 rPD (7 APs) out of 37 APs total, much less than half, would say that this defender suffers the full 10 STUN from the penetrating attack.
However, for a Killing Attack, since only rPD stops the BODY, you ignore the normal PD for this purpose, and so both my example and yours would qualify since the full rPD is Impenetrable. So if they got hit with a 3d6+1 K attack (same DCs as your 10d6) that happened to roll really low (say only 5 BODY, for only 2 Penetrating BODY), then that attack would do no BODY since both rPD are covered and you do not count the normal PD to see if half is covered (in both these cases 100% is covered since only rPD works against BODY from Killing Attacks).
Not sure which is better, depends on your campaign. The latter is nice in that you can know upfront if your defenses will stop Penetrating attacks or not and it stops players from trying to buy a tiny amount of defense just to get this, since they have to buy at least half of the APs for that type to have it work.
-
You can use a rough guide that assumes that the intensity of the blast felt by someone is proportional to the size of the blast. To double the size (in radius) of a blast you must increase its energy volume (the amount of energy) by 8 since the volume of a sphere is proportional to the radius cubed. If you assume each such doubling of size adds +1 DC, this in addition to the above mentioned scaling advantage making the explosion much larger, you could use a simple equation where DC = Damage classes added: Volume of Fuel (in liters) = 2^(DC*3). So for a +1 DC you have Volume = 2^(1*3) = 8 liters of explosive adds +1 DC (making it a 3d6+1 K). If you want +2 DC you need: V=2^(2*3) = 64 liters. If you want +3 DCs you need: V=2^(3*3) = 512 liters. Basically just keep multiplying the previous result by 8 to get the next result. So 512*8 = 4,096 liters to get +4 DCs, and so on.
So your 208 liter barrel is not quite +3 DCs, you would need 3 barrels to get +3 DCs, so 3 barrels of the stuff (624 liters) would give you a 4d6 K attack as a base. You would need about 20 barrels to get +4 DCs and only do 4d6+1 K. If you had them endure a massive blast from 1,261 barrels of this stuff (say a storage depot of the stuff) you get +6 DCs for a 5d6 K attack.
-
I use the Damage Negation power as a way to simulate reductions in damage from barriers and walls and the like. If you just treat them as armor, then you end up being more Stun heavy with whatever hits the target. I think the damage reduction of the Body should also reduce the Stun proportionally as well.
For example, an attack deals 10 Body and 35 Stun. If it goes through say a Wall with DEF 5 and BODY 4 then using the armor idea, what ends up getting through is an attack dealing only 1 Body and yet still doing a whopping 26 Stun! That just seems disproportional to me. The Stun should be reduced in the same proportion, since this attack is not blocked by armor which is next to the target's body and thus the pass through Stun makes sense, this is, rather, a reduction of the power of the attack in an overall way.
I basically rule that for every 1 Body reduced, you reduce Stun by 3.5 (or you can just round it to 3 to make it simple). Or for a killing attack, just calculate the Stun based on the Body that makes it through, not the original Body.
So the above attack would end up reducing the Stun not by 9 but by 9 x 3.5 = 31, making the final attack deal 1 Body and 4 Stun, much more in line.
This is what Damage Negation basically does, so you can either reduce the dice rolled by amount equal to the DEF and BODY of the obstacle, which avoids the need to use the above 1 Body per 3.5 Stun conversion. For killing attacks, just reduce the Body first, then calculate the Stun from this reduced Body.
So a 10d6 attack going through a DEF 5 BODY 4 wall, reduces itself to a single 1d6 attack actually rolled against the target on the other side.
Larry
-
Facing kind of assumes the combatant is not able to react fast enough to always be facing his next attacker. HERO assumes, for example, you can Block many foes, each is progressively harder, but why would you not be able to turn to face each attack as it comes? This is really more of a gritty vs. cinematic feel, so probably why HERO did not want to default to anything. If you cannot perceive the attack, then you could not face it, but then surprise rules take care of that (and for that matter if you did not see it coming, it could hit you smack in the face from the front and still be just as nasty as from the back). Also if you were overwhelmed with many foes, you would be unable to face each one unless they attacked somewhat uncoordinated, allowing you to deal with each attack piecemeal. But this is a Multiplie Attackers Coordinating issue, which again the rules cover and gives big bonuses for it, simulating your inability to face each one.
Facing also, for me, is a bit odd, because it basically means you are frozen in place, unable to move or twist, until your next phase. This may be good for a slow vehicle like a Mech or Tank, but not for a much more agile character.
Also Facing adds a new thing to keep track of, and you need to ask, is this new thing to track really worth the effort? Is it adding something to my game? If it is, then you can come up with some house rules for it, but HERO seems to prefer to keep things on a level playing field so those who use Theatre of the Mind and not Hex Maps can also play without being forced to house rule around the fact that facing does not work well in a non-hex map setting. Much easier to just use dramatic sense and decide if an attack get a surprise bonus against you, and then let you decide what exactly happened (you were surprised, you were facing the wrong way, you were too focused on your last target, etc.).
The Indirect advantage assumes a sort of back attack anyway many times, so the idea is there, but just no encoded rules for it, since it seems like HERO's motto is keep it as simple as possible and rely on individual groups to make house rules if they desire.
Coming from the d20 world, I know that many of the D&D and other such products have extensive rules, and many are rules I did not like, so I house ruled them away. By not including too many optional rules as a core in HERO (but they mention many options in the rules to give GMs ideas) but only those that seem to have reached a critical mass over the 6 editions, the game is able to improve and meet the majority, allowing the minority to use options and house rules if needed.
I would, for example, ignore any Facing Rules in HERO if there, as I prefer to just use a simple unified idea of assigning an OCV penalty or bonus based on the creative idea or tactic of a player and then let them describe why the bonus or penalty made sense. If I wanted, say, to simulate maybe like a Golem or Zombie that was slow and could not turn on a dime and face you, I would simply give attackers bonuses to gain surprise +x to OCV against them, but require them to come up with and describe the move they are using to get it. If facing was defined in this case, what would most often happen, since it is a rule at that point, is that players quit trying to be descriptive and just always try to spam the same move over and over (try to get behind him!) because you get a bonus for it, so you cannot blame then that much for it, but that is why I would remove it if it did exist. I want my players to earn their bonuses in the game by description and getting involved, but not by spamming the same moves over and over. If they try to describe the same things over and over, they already know it will fail after the 3rd use (the 2nd I may give a lesser bonus, but the 3rd is just not going to happen).
Larry
-
You can do that in 2 ways, one is to just have the PC be a full SPD 3 in this case (real SPD is 2 with the +1 only to Abort) and just keep an eye on them and if they have not Aborted in a Turn and Phase 12 comes up for them, they must either skip it, or just use it for a defensive action they could Abort to and move on.I think I have to agree with BigbyWolf on this one. If you spend half of your actions recovering from your other actions, you're paying a pretty steep price for them. And if you do so by having a really high SPD, you've really paid a high price for it. That, paired with the prohibition against aborting to an action in the same segment you've already acted, seems like it's fair to me.The other way is to just keep them at SPD 2 and then let them Abort 1/Turn for "free" without using up their next Phase. That way is a bit easier to track but is probably not the most technically correct way to do it.
-
You would also need to be very careful using this d20 vs. d20 system with respect to Hit Locations, since a -8 to the head under this system is only about a - 29% difference to hit, but in HERO it would be a -62% difference! More to the point, and a better way to look at it, in the d20 vs. d20 model, a head shot (-8) means you hit the target 23% rather than 52%, or 23/52 = 44% as often as normal. HERO means you hit the foe only 0.5% rather than 63%, or 0.5/63 = 0.8% as often! In other words, a -8 in HERO means you basically cannot hit the target, while in the d20 vs. d20 system, it means you only cut your odds in half.The system of roll a d20+OCV vs. d20+DCV does not give much of a bell curve. Compare it to the HERO roll 3d6 vs. 11.[TABLE=width: 676]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD=colspan: 17]OCV-DCV (% to Hit)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]System[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]-7[/TD]
[TD]-6[/TD]
[TD]-5[/TD]
[TD]-4[/TD]
[TD]-3[/TD]
[TD]-2[/TD]
[TD]-1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3d6 vs. 11[/TD]
[TD]0.5%[/TD]
[TD]2%[/TD]
[TD]5%[/TD]
[TD]9%[/TD]
[TD]16%[/TD]
[TD]26%[/TD]
[TD]38%[/TD]
[TD]50%[/TD]
[TD]63%[/TD]
[TD]74%[/TD]
[TD]84%[/TD]
[TD]91%[/TD]
[TD]95%[/TD]
[TD]98%[/TD]
[TD]99.5%[/TD]
[TD]99.5%[/TD]
[TD]99.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]d20 vs. d20[/TD]
[TD]23%[/TD]
[TD]26%[/TD]
[TD]29%[/TD]
[TD]32%[/TD]
[TD]36%[/TD]
[TD]39%[/TD]
[TD]43%[/TD]
[TD]48%[/TD]
[TD]52%[/TD]
[TD]57%[/TD]
[TD]61%[/TD]
[TD]64%[/TD]
[TD]68%[/TD]
[TD]71%[/TD]
[TD]74%[/TD]
[TD]77%[/TD]
[TD]79%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
As you can see above, the HERO system (3d6 vs. 11) gives a significant bell curve as the difference in the OCV to DCV diverges. The d20, even in this case of the "2d20" system proposed by Dragonblade, which I show above, does not give much of a curve at all, in fact it is actually less variable than a straight d20 vs. 10 system which has a flat 5% change for each +/-1. You can see that the d20 vs. d20 has a much muted change, around 3% per +/-1, so in this system each +/-1 does not mean nearly as much as it does in a normal d20 vs. 10 system, and much less than in a 3d6 vs. 11 system.
Using d20 will tend to make the HERO basic system assumptions break down. As you can see, even with a +8 OCV bonus in the d20 vs. d20 you only get an increase of about 27% to hit! It has to do with the vast range a 2d20 can give, (2-40, 39 values) and the +8 just gets lost in it. The span of 3d6 is only 3-18 (16 values).
Larry
Great analysis! Yeah its definitely a flatter curve then I remembered. I graphed it on anydice.com and it is a curve, but definitely not a bell curve.
I also forgot about the impact on CV disparity since we have been playing this way for so long. But yes, as your analysis shows, under the HERO 3d6, a difference in CV has a much greater impact on the game. I personally find this a feature rather than a bug though. In my experience, its easier to throw opponents of greater power at the PC's without them being totally overmatched. Conversely, it also allows me to threaten the PCs better with mooks and minions of a much lower relative power level.
But certainly the impact on the game is more dramatic than I recalled. Nice work there!
In HERO cutting your odds in half (assuming equal matched foes, OCV = DCV) happens with only a -2 (60% of original hit chance) to -3 (41% of original hit chance) to hit. So in other words, a -8 in the d20 vs. d20 system is about equal to a -3 in HERO. That is quite a difference! It means head shots, given their powerful effect, would be a common occurrence in the d20 model, and would likely be broken. You would need to make that penalty like a -21 or so to keep the same impact as it is in HERO at -8, and even then, you cannot get down to the low levels of miss chance like in HERO, because in HERO only a 3 always hits (a mere 0.5% chance) which means it is possible to be penalized so much in HERO that you miss 99.5% of the time. In d20, since a 20 always hits unless the defender rolls a 20 also, that means 19 results out of 400 the attacker always hits (about 5% of the time), so even with a -1,000,000 penalty in that system, you still have always about a 5% to hit chance, whereas in HERO you would have only a 0.5% to hit chance, about a 10 fold (order of magnitude) difference.
This means that in the d20 model, no matter what the penalty assigned, since you always have at least a 5% to hit and always a 5% to miss also (given that a 1 always misses, even if the defender rolls a 1 also), your penalty will never be worse than the equivalent of a -6 in HERO. So really, you are bounded quite a bit in the effect that skill has, it is much more dominated by the die result than by the difference in skill.
Thus, I think such a system will have issues with the HERO game, such as for things like Called Shots or any other penalty (like ranged penalties) since no matter what the penalty it will never really be worse than about a -6 in HERO because you always have at least a 5% chance to succeed. I think that would mean you must be willing to accept quite a drastic paradigm shift if you do this, and realize that skill will be much muted in such a system compared to HERO.
-
This is generally true in concept, but there are specific cases where it breaks down. For example, in my game now, a lower point (150 point) game, the PCs are kept at SPD 2-3 and I allow them to take a single +1 SPD but with a limit, like Only to Abort or Only to Defend. It is such a case as this, the PC using a powerful attack, like MultiAttack (which drops your DCV to 1/2) to put some hurt on the field, and then the next segment use Abort with their +1 SPD Only to Abort action.I think I have to agree with BigbyWolf on this one. If you spend half of your actions recovering from your other actions, you're paying a pretty steep price for them. And if you do so by having a really high SPD, you've really paid a high price for it. That, paired with the prohibition against aborting to an action in the same segment you've already acted, seems like it's fair to me.I have not run into a problem yet, but I am trying to use foresight (without paying points for it) to have some way to deal with this potential issue if it should come up, since my players now are new to HERO (from 4E D&D) and so I suspect things like this will come up eventually.
Coming from the d20 world, you bring some baggage with you, like the need for House Rules, since many of the d20 elements are a bit off or outright broken. HERO may not need them (or not as much maybe) but my players are used to having the rules laid out as much as possible in advance and less used to having the GM make calls on the spot too often, which HERO tends to more than d20. They will have to get used to the paradigm shift, but when possible, I try to lay out the way I will interpret the rules for them as much in advance as I can, so they can know what to expect. Thus, I want to formulate a good response to something like the situation of this Thread ahead of time with input from the Forum so I can have it ready if needed.
-
The system of roll a d20+OCV vs. d20+DCV does not give much of a bell curve. Compare it to the HERO roll 3d6 vs. 11.
[TABLE=width: 676]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD=colspan: 17]OCV-DCV (% to Hit)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]System[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]-7[/TD]
[TD]-6[/TD]
[TD]-5[/TD]
[TD]-4[/TD]
[TD]-3[/TD]
[TD]-2[/TD]
[TD]-1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3d6 vs. 11[/TD]
[TD]0.5%[/TD]
[TD]2%[/TD]
[TD]5%[/TD]
[TD]9%[/TD]
[TD]16%[/TD]
[TD]26%[/TD]
[TD]38%[/TD]
[TD]50%[/TD]
[TD]63%[/TD]
[TD]74%[/TD]
[TD]84%[/TD]
[TD]91%[/TD]
[TD]95%[/TD]
[TD]98%[/TD]
[TD]99.5%[/TD]
[TD]99.5%[/TD]
[TD]99.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]d20 vs. d20[/TD]
[TD]23%[/TD]
[TD]26%[/TD]
[TD]29%[/TD]
[TD]32%[/TD]
[TD]36%[/TD]
[TD]39%[/TD]
[TD]43%[/TD]
[TD]48%[/TD]
[TD]52%[/TD]
[TD]57%[/TD]
[TD]61%[/TD]
[TD]64%[/TD]
[TD]68%[/TD]
[TD]71%[/TD]
[TD]74%[/TD]
[TD]77%[/TD]
[TD]79%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
As you can see above, the HERO system (3d6 vs. 11) gives a significant bell curve as the difference in the OCV to DCV diverges. The d20, even in this case of the "2d20" system proposed by Dragonblade, which I show above, does not give much of a curve at all, in fact it is actually less variable than a straight d20 vs. 10 system which has a flat 5% change for each +/-1. You can see that the d20 vs. d20 has a much muted change, around 3% per +/-1, so in this system each +/-1 does not mean nearly as much as it does in a normal d20 vs. 10 system, and much less than in a 3d6 vs. 11 system.
Using d20 will tend to make the HERO basic system assumptions break down. As you can see, even with a +8 OCV bonus in the d20 vs. d20 you only get an increase of about 27% to hit! It has to do with the vast range a 2d20 can give, (2-40, 39 values) and the +8 just gets lost in it. The span of 3d6 is only 3-18 (16 values).
Larry
-
Stacking is how it would be done in d20, but the problem with that in HERO is that is pretty much makes defensive aborts a worthless option in that case due to the bell curve scale HERO works at. In general a +/- 3-4 difference between OCV vs. DCV is about the really workable range you want to deal with. So if your DCV is say -5 (Haymaker), the incentive to Dodge is to not only get a +3 but also eliminate all penalties as well, it makes it a good enough option to justify giving up your next action for. If all you get is the +3 stacked, then in many cases it would not be a good enough option to justify losing your whole next phase for. I mean -5 vs. -2 DCV (-5 +3 Dodge) is really not good enough IMO to justify giving up my next action. I would rather just accept I will be hit and then use my next action to deal with it, rather than make the -5 a -2 and realize I will still probably get hit (only say an 80% chance to hit me with my -2 vs. maybe a 97% with my -5, so, it is really not worth the loss of an action). It is even worse with the 1/2 DCV, which would cut my +3 in half, adding a mere +2 say to an already gimped 1/2 DCV, so again, why bother.
It also does not address the Block option or Dive for Cover option, even if the DCV stacked (which is not a good idea as it just gimps Dodge as an option) Block does not care about DCV but about OCV, and Dive just cares about a high DEX.
I think the way HERO works it is fine and makes for a solid system overall, replacing DCV effects with the new Action DCV effect is the way it should be IMO, it is just the tricky interaction of these things with the Abort mechanic that runs into this issue.
I have toyed with metarules that limit when you can Abort if you purposefully use an Action/Maneuver that imposes a DCV penalty. I first thought of this idea:
Abort Limit Idea 1: If you want to Abort, and you are suffering from a DCV penalty you Imposed on yourself, you must make a DEX check with a penalty equal to the DCV penalty or you cannot Abort in that Segment (make the check again each new Segment you want to Abort in, until you finally make it, or your phase shows up). A 1/2 DCV would require you to make a Critical DEX check success (get 1/2 or less than what was needed).
The above idea would make it so you would know you are making yourself more vulnerable by imposing a DCV penalty on yourself. Once the DCV clears (when your next phase shows up, or you successfully Abort) this need to make DEX checks to Abort goes away of course. The potential problem is that is rewards high DEX PCs perhaps too much (maybe it is fine this way) and lets them still potentially ignore this due to their high DEX check (maybe not for 1/2 DCV but for small penalties it would), and it requires extra checks which I like to avoid when possible. It does help to simulate that if you take an action that imposes a DCV penalty, you are overextending yourself and thus less able to mount a defense (Abort), which I do like.
The default HERO rule is of course to have the GM decide if an Abort is allowed, and so all these attempts are just a way to find a system that codifies some metarule that allows the GM to not have to make this call or make it in a more consistent way. Even with such a rule the GM can always override it if needed. I tend to go with now a general mental rule of thumb that says you cannot Abort if you impose a DCV penalty on yourself against attacks of "minions" or lesser foes, but only against attacks of Major foes like the BBEG. I also may look at the Complications and say you cannot Abort if you impose a DCV penalty on yourself against any attack by a foe from your Hunted Complication, simulating the effect that they know your moves and weaknesses perhaps better than others and so know how to attack you when you are vulnerable.
Larry (and this one's for you Lucius)
MetaRule 0: You cannot Abort against any attack made by a palindromedary
-
I am playing a HERO game as the GM from a 4E game we left off of. One issue I wanted to see if any of you could offer me help on is the issue in my subject, where an attack power with a DCV penalty is used (usually on a segment where no one else has a phase) then the next time the character is attacked (in the next segment say) they Abort and poof, no more penalty.
Aside from the HERO etiquette which I already know and so do my players for the most part, is there any simple way to deal with this mechanically or with a metarule that any of you may use or have tried. I hope it will not be a problem, but I wanted to have a fallback just in case.
My current idea is to bring in a sort of Opportunity Attack concept from my d20 side. We are testing it now, but it is basically a metarule that says anyone can use a Melee Attack Power (single target only) to use as an Abort to an Attack if a foe within Reach (that is defined as a foe you could attack with that Melee Power from where you are) uses any Attack action that imposes a DCV penalty on themselves. Your Abort happens after they finish the use of the Power. This seems to make using attack powers with severe penalties something you think twice about when you are within reach of foes, as it effectively allows anyone in reach to take an action on your same segment (thus you cannot Abort to defense) and smack you at your lower DCV.
Of course doing this makes that foe a bit vulnerable as well since they cannot then Abort to a defense themselves if needed until their aborted phase clears. Do you think this is too much? Anyone see any potential issue here? We have just started to try this (starting this Friday). Thanks for any input.
Larry
-
I am not sure you will get much out of this other than perhaps a more pleasing feel to you about how it is now always better to roll high. One thing that I like, coming from a d20 world, about the fact that in HERO you want to roll high some times (damage and effect dice) and low other times (attack and skill checks) is that you get a sense of balance in that all die results matter, there are no universally bad results (like in d20 low results on the dice are pretty much always bad). It also helps to mitigate the subjective bias we all experience of tending to only recall the bad results ("I always roll low!") by having the result desired (high or low) change based on what is being done. So you can see that you are complaining both about "always rolling low" and "always rolling high!" at the same time! This can help you to recognize that you really are not under some divine curse to roll poorly, but are just perhaps particularly afflicted by the "I like to feel sorry for myself" condition:) I know one of my players has noticed this for himself.
But one issue you will face if you do this, is that of critical successes. No longer can you use the somewhat elegant method of rolling half or less what was needed on the 3d6 to achieve a critical success. How will you now determine such? You will have to come up with another house rule for that. I like the default HERO method because as your skill gets better so also does your chance for a critical success (since half of a higher value also get higher and thus more likely to achieve). It will be a bit harder to simulate this same idea for your always roll high system.
As for the issue of Opposed Rolls, coming from d20, I just have my MapTool set up so it not only shows if the roll was a success or not, but shows by how much it succeeded or failed. For example, if you have a Skill of 12- and the 3d6 roll was 10, you would not just see "Success", but "Success (+2)". Or if you rolled a 15, you would see "Failure (-3)". This then allows me to quickly compare 2 rolls and oppose them against each other. The one with the greater degree of success (or perhaps lesser degree of failure if applicable) wins and ties go to the higher skill or in the case of a tie there, the Active Agent (the one who is initiating the action, so the Attacker, or the Sneaker, or the Lockpicker, etc). This also allows me to call for a roll and apply any modifiers to it, after the fact to speed up things or whatever. So if there is a +2 bonus to a check and the result came up "Failure (-2)" I would declare it a success, since adding 2 to that would turn that into an exact Success. I also can show the potential for Critical Success this way. If the MapTool code sees that the 3d6 result was 9 or lower (I do not allow rolls of 10+ to achieve critical success, since I go with the idea of 18 always fails, so a 9 is the highest roll able to achieve a critical success if you needed an 18 or higher), it gives an extra bit of information. So in the above example, of a Skill 12-, if the roll was say a 9, since that would be a critical success if the check gained a +6 bonus or more (since a +6 bonus makes a 12- into a 18- where a roll of 9 then becomes a critical roll) it would show in the output: "Success (+3), Critical Success (-6)". This tells me that the roll succeeds, even with a -3 penalty, and is a critical success if the roll gained a +6 bonus somehow (such as for an easy task).
So my point is that you do not need to change the default HERO to work in opposed rolls, just have a player tell you how much they succeeded by (or failed by) and you can use that to compare to the opposing roll. Say you make a guard's PER roll and get Success (+2) in secret of course. Then the PC makes a Stealth roll of only Success (+1). They may be happy with that roll, but you know that it fails, however, as long as they are 9 meters or more away from the guard (which would impose a -2 penalty to the guard's PER check due to range) they are successful, but the moment they get closer than that, he notices them. This does not give anything away to the player, and they have to just go with what they know and play it that way. They may think their +1 success lets them get close and will be shocked when it fails:)
Overall, except for the critical success issue, I do not see a down side per say to using the d20 model of high always wins, but it will impose a bit more work on changing the default material and require a new rule to handle critical successes, so it seems like extra effort, and if you think it is important enough to you, I guess it is not overly burdensome.
-
This Alternate Hit Location (Aiming) System is pretty solid statistically, I did a quick check on it and it really is pretty balanced and has no serious loop holes in it to exploit. I assumed a Roll of 3 on 3d6 for your attack always hits the location you aimed at, which I think was how this system was designed (it does not make that much of a difference anyway, but just wanted to state the assumption I used), and what I did (assuming the attached excel file actually uploaded, I am new here and not sure if this forum is upload friendly) as you can see in the excel file is to compare the average result you get when using this system compared to a regular attack (one that does not aim, but just attacks the target's DCV and rolls 3d6 for location per normal HERO rules). I did not bother comparing to an attack that made a called shot to any location using normal HERO rules, as this new system would always be superior to that, since both systems hit the aimed at location if the attack roll is high enough, but this New System also allows a hit to still be possible even if the attack roll is less than what is needed to auto hit the aimed at area, making the New System strictly higher damage than the default HERO rules for making Called Shots.
So what this attached file shows is the ratio of the damage inflicted using the New System / Default HERO. When you see a value of 1 it means the two systems give the same statistically average result, thus there is no difference in effect using the New System over the Default. Values above 1 indicate that the New System gives a higher average result for that damage modifier (there are 3: STUNX, NSTUNX, and BODYX) whereas those below 1 mean the New System gives a lower average than just using the Default system. If you see, say, a 1.25 that means the New System gives you 25% more damage than the Default would for that damage modifier, while if you see a 0.85 it means the New System gets you only 85% of what the Default you give you, a 15% reduction in effect.
So you can see which Aimed Locations turn out to be the best bang for your buck depending on what 3d6 result you need to hit the target's normal DCV. The numbers at the very top row show the 3d6 you need to hit the target DCV, and I show up to a 25, as even though a roll of 18 always misses, which is factored into this sheet, at a 25 you pretty much always hit where you Aim using this system, since the worst penalty is -8, and that means your 25 needed to hit drops to a 17, which means you always hit that place since an 18 always misses anyway. So you should expect that if you need a 25 to hit the foe (and that would be a pretty lopsided combat to be sure!) you should be aiming at the Head:)
I used the Conditional Filter of Excel to have it highlight the maximum result in each of the damage modifier columns, so you can see the scatter of highlighted cells for each 3d6 needed group of columns to see where is the most advantageous place to aim depending on what you are trying to do (if you want to Stun the foe and care not as much for dealing just Body, and use a Killing Attack, you look at the STUNX column. If you use a Normal Attack and care about Stun not Body done, you look at the NSTUNX column. If you want Body as the priority, say you are facing an automation that takes no Stun, look at the BODYX column.) It is interesting that each of these 3 damage modifiers often has a different hit location for maximum effect, which I think is actually a neat and very flavorful artifact of this New System, you target different places depending on what you want to achieve.
The ratios are not really that high, you are looking at no more than 2-3% better than the Default for the normal ranges of 3d6 needed to hit (say from 7-14 needed to hit the target as the typical range you might expect) when choosing that optimal location to aim at. Actually, if your players are not optimizing in this fashion and just aim at parts that seem fun to them, they may actually end up netting less damage than if they just used the Default. But that would not be all that much less in most cases as you will see anyway, so it adds the fun of aiming but without that much of an impact on effect overall.
Just for fun, here is the result for the 3-17 range, the maximum for 18-24 is basically the same as for 17, while 25 is the same as for 3 more or less. [TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Roll[/TD]
[TD]Location[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]Auto Hit[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[TD]STUNx[/TD]
[TD]NSTUN[/TD]
[TD]BODYx[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Face[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]1.74[/TD]
[TD]2.00[/TD]
[TD]2.02[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]1.07[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]0.84[/TD]
[TD]0.72[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.71[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]0.84[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.87[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]1.09[/TD]
[TD]1.10[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Neck[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]1.74[/TD]
[TD]2.00[/TD]
[TD]2.02[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.16[/TD]
[TD]1.17[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.85[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.82[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.82[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.85[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]1.07[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.18[/TD]
[TD]1.19[/TD]
[TD]1.16[/TD]
[TD]1.30[/TD]
[TD]1.32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Crown[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]1.74[/TD]
[TD]2.00[/TD]
[TD]2.02[/TD]
[TD]1.11[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.07[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.07[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.14[/TD]
[TD]1.15[/TD]
[TD]1.12[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[TD]1.25[/TD]
[TD]1.21[/TD]
[TD]1.36[/TD]
[TD]1.37[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Hands[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-6[/TD]
[TD]0.35[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.88[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.84[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.87[/TD]
[TD]0.87[/TD]
[TD]0.72[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.82[/TD]
[TD]0.65[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.76[/TD]
[TD]0.58[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Lower Arms[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-5[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]0.87[/TD]
[TD]0.87[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.84[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.64[/TD]
[TD]0.64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Upper Arms[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-5[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]0.87[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.84[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.63[/TD]
[TD]0.64[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Shoulders[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]-5[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Breast[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]-3[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Ribs[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]-3[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.03[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]Stomach[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]1.5[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]-7[/TD]
[TD]1.40[/TD]
[TD]1.50[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]1.11[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.02[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.08[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.09[/TD]
[TD]1.12[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]1.14[/TD]
[TD]1.18[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.19[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]Vitals[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]1.5[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]1.40[/TD]
[TD]1.50[/TD]
[TD]2.02[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.09[/TD]
[TD]1.22[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.06[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.06[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]1.04[/TD]
[TD]1.14[/TD]
[TD]1.05[/TD]
[TD]1.09[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[TD]1.11[/TD]
[TD]1.16[/TD]
[TD]1.36[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]Thighs[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]-4[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]1.01[/TD]
[TD]0.82[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.85[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.85[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.85[/TD]
[TD]0.90[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.82[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.93[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.76[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.97[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.72[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]0.99[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Knees[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-6[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.73[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.81[/TD]
[TD]0.77[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[TD]0.76[/TD]
[TD]0.76[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.76[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.76[/TD]
[TD]0.75[/TD]
[TD]0.71[/TD]
[TD]0.73[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.74[/TD]
[TD]0.65[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.73[/TD]
[TD]0.61[/TD]
[TD]0.62[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Calves[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-6[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.64[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.71[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.70[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.69[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.66[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.65[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.63[/TD]
[TD]0.65[/TD]
[TD]0.67[/TD]
[TD]0.61[/TD]
[TD]0.63[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.59[/TD]
[TD]0.60[/TD]
[TD]0.68[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.58[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Ankles[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]0.35[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.48[/TD]
[TD]0.54[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.51[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.52[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.52[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.53[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.53[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.53[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.53[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.53[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.52[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.51[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]0.57[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.48[/TD]
[TD]0.54[/TD]
[TD]0.56[/TD]
[TD]0.46[/TD]
[TD]0.54[/TD]
[TD]0.55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Feet[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]0.5[/TD]
[TD]-8[/TD]
[TD]0.35[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.50[/TD]
[TD]0.39[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.46[/TD]
[TD]0.40[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.40[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.41[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.41[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.41[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.41[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.41[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.41[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.40[/TD]
[TD]0.43[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.40[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.40[/TD]
[TD]0.44[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.39[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD]0.46[/TD]
[TD]0.39[/TD]
[TD]0.46[/TD]
[TD]0.47[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Unfortunately the highlight cannot be shown in the above as the paste of the forum does not allow it, so you just have to find the highest value by eye for each case, but the excel file has it. [ATTACH]New Hit Location System.xls[/ATTACH]
Let me know if somehow you guys cannot access the excel sheet, and if so, maybe someone can tell me how to make it so it can be accessed.
-
The whole acceleration thing is messed up anyway from a real world point of view, so I think it was meant to be used to act as a sort of balance on Move By/Through and as another balance to high speed characters to give them another "turn mode" like thing to deal with to give high speeds some more "real world" limits. I would not read into it anything more than this, just use it as a tool to balance higher speeds for determining Effective Velocity for purposes of Move By/Through type things and bring in some more maneuverability limits, otherwise, you should probably ignore it for all other considerations, especially real world stuff.
To demonstrate by point about real world acceleration and velocity:
Using the example given in the text on page 156 V1 you have a speed 40m character. Lets give them a SPD 3 just to make the math simpler. So for a speed 3 you have this character with a full velocity of 40m x 3 SPD = 120m per Turn (12 seconds) or 120m/12 sec = 10 m/s velocity at full speed. You could also get this same value by noting that for a SPD 3 each Phase you get comprises 4 seconds (12/SPD = Seconds per Phase). So with a 40m per Phase you get 40m/4 sec = 10 m/s as well. Either way, you have a full velocity of 10 m/s. Thus, if already moving at your full velocity of 40m which is 10 m/s, you then cover a distance of 40 m in the 4 seconds of your Phase, which is how the rules are supposed to work, but this only works if you assume you go from 0 m/s to 10 m/s more or less instantly so you are able to move at 10 m/s for the full 4 seconds of your Phase to actually move 40 m with a full move.
Now, however, by the rules, you can only achieve 5m of your 40m move during the first 1m moved. Then you get up to 10m of the full 40m during your next 1m, and so on until you reach the full 40m by 8m. Lets convert this into a real world velocity. If I can only be moving with a velocity of 5m out of my 40m then I am moving at 1/8th my full speed (5/40 = 1/8) which means 10 m/s (full speed) x 1/8 = 1.25 m/s. So until I finish moving that first 1 m, my velocity is only 1.25 m/s. But this means it takes me 1 m / 1.25 m/s = 0.8 seconds to actually finish moving that first meter. Then when I finish moving that first 1 m, I speed up to 10m out of 40m which is 2.5 m/s actual velocity. It then takes me 1 m / 2.5 m/s = 0.4 seconds to finish moving that second 1 m distance. If you do this for the first 7 of the 1 m distances you have to move to finally reach full velocity, the total time to cover these 7 m is: 0.8+0.4+0.267+0.2+0.16+0.133+0.114 = 2.07 seconds, we will just round it off to an even 2 seconds for sake of ease. Thus it took me (again using "real world" physics) 2 seconds to actually move 7 meters. I have used up half my phase now (4 seconds for my Phase) just to move 7 m and finally get up to my full 40m (10 m/s) velocity.
Here is the funny part, if I actually want to STOP at the end of my Phase (say I want to make a full move of 40 m next to my friend and then use Heal on him to save his life on my next action), rather than just get up to speed to keep moving, I must now decelerate to a velocity of 0 again. Well, by the rules I must also do this in 5m steps. As you can see, I have only 2 seconds left to my Phase having used the first 2 seconds to get up to my full velocity and only covering 7 m in the process. I now must begin to decelerate immediately, as it takes me 2 seconds to do so and get back down to 0 velocity so I can stop where I want to go. The time and distance covered is the same during acceleration as it is for deceleration if they are at the same rate of 5m per 1 m covered. So I spend 4 seconds (my Phase) moving up to full velocity and then back down again to 0, and managed to cover a distance of only 14 m in the process! So my 40m Fly really only lets me move 14 actual meters if I start from rest and want to end my move at rest.
So you can see that you should be ignoring this rule for all purposes other than using it to determine the "Effective Velocity" you can attain for damage or whatever from a Move By/Through or whatever else you need it for. So it really does not matter if you are Leaping or Running or Flying, this rule has no real bearing on how you really are moving, it only serves as a game system artifact to help balance move powers and give them limitations that give a real world feel for the need to speed up and slow down and the hindrances that can cause, just ignore them for any other purpose.
So it is not really a problem that Leaping uses this rule, as it is just for balance, it does not in any way reflect how you really are moving to get from point A to point B. In order to do that, you really have to be able to achieve your full velocity instantly and stop on a literal dime as well. This is one of those areas where you simply have to "suspend your disbelief" for this area, and just realize it is a tool that achieves what you want, allowing you to move in simple ways and also giving some "real world feel" to it as well, but do not try to delve into it beyond that, as it all breaks down.
Intelligent Question?
in HERO System Discussion
Posted
Ablative defenses on Bricks is another option. Use the version where each time the defense is overcome reduce it by 5 APs. Perhaps allow the Brick to gain his REC to his defenses so reduced whenever he takes a Recovery, or since that may be too much, make it like Drain and just recover a flat 5 APs per Turn to such reduced defenses. Maybe only apply the Ablative reduction if the attack has at least X APs to keep lesser attacks from really doing so, and only let hard hits do this. Maybe X is equal to the APs the Brick has in that defense.