JamesG

Re: Zombie Hero: Pt 1 The Oakdale Galleria

Very interesting read. Any more, for this or group 2?

I wonder if Wanderer has seen this, might change his mind about the RPing validity and fun a horror game can provide.

Can a Area of Effect attack that is selective or nonselective be Missile Deflected/Blocked by default, or does it need the Can be Missile Deflected/Blocked limitation in order to be Deflected/Blocked?

Thanks.

Hi, I have a couple of questions regarding the OCV penalty for attacking while prone. The UMA specifies a -2 OCV for “groudfighting†(HtH combat between prone combatants), and the FAQ states that this -2 OCV could also be assessed on a prone attacker attacking a standing target.

1 – Is the OCV penalty a “standard ruleâ€, in the sense that the ½ DCV penalty for being prone is standard, or is the OCV penalty more of an “optional†rule? Yes, I know all rules are “optionalâ€, but some are more optional than others

2 – Does the OCV penalty only impact HtH attacks, or are ranged attacks penalized as well?

Does a character that pays for a Vehicle in character points through the Vehicle Perk need to buy a Transport Familiarity to operate it? Or does he automatically know how to operate the vehicle, on the same principle that a character that pays for a "weapon" with character points doesn't need a WF with it?

Thanks.

Re: Speed Rebate

Since the player want is to hit more often and be hit less often' date=' that seems like an obvious case of using CSLs. Right?[/quote']

 

Assuming they want to hit more with all modes of attack, and get hit less often by all modes of attack, they'd need 8 pnt CSLs. Possible, but very inefficient when compared to DEX.

 

Besides, the player wants to hit more often and be hit less often... that's DEX. If they wanted to hit more often OR be hit less often, that would be CSLs.

 

PS - What I'm getting at here is that the 6 XPs for +3 DEX give +1 OCV and +1 DCV, while the 8 pnt CSL gives +1 OCV or +1 DCV.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

But that's at least partially taken into account by the increased STR minimum.

Not really. A “Stick†has STR Min of 5, does 2d6N damage, has a DEF/BOD of 3/3 and a mass of 0.9 KG. A “Club†has STR Min of 10, does 4d6N damage, has a DEF/BOD of 3/5 and a mass of 1.5 KG. Wielded by a STR 10 character, the Stick does 3d6N and the Club does 4d6N. The only difference between the Stick and the Club is the Club has higher BOD/Mass, and the Club does higher damage.

This seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that in HERO terms, items of higher mass should to more damage to similar items of lower mass, all other factors being equal.

Actual weapons that are designed to be weapons work differently than objects used as weapons.

That’s why I choose the ‘club’ weapon type as an example. Its pretty much just a well made OoO. I don’t think it differs much from OoO in how it inflicts damage, though it itself can probably stand up to being used as a weapon better (its less likely to break).

Is a wooden stool going to do more damage than one leg of the wooden stool, assuming the same amount of STR is applied in each case? Yes. Because the max damage is still DEF+BODY, and one leg is going to have less BODY than the whole stool.

Also yes because the stool is heavier than the leg, and should get more bonus damage. Actually, assuming the stool is DEF/BOD 3/3 and the leg is 3/1, they will do the same damage in the hands of a STR 5 person in your system. They might in mine too, but only because I cap damage at double STR damage.

That's my point. The damage is the same with a lighter bat.

Sorry, thought you had been implying that the lighter bat did MORE damage due to being swung faster.

Whether it's bashing or piercing damage isn't the issue. The only reason bullets can penetrate flesh and kill is because of their high velocity. They aren't sharp. You can drive one into someone's flesh with your bare hands. Guns don't require your strength, they use the strength provided by the exploding gunpowder. The point is, the larger the bullet, the less velocity it will have, given the same amount of explosive force. Larger bullets usually have larger guns and more explosive force behind them so they can do more damage

I agree that a larger bullet will have lower velocity than a smaller bullet, given the same explosive force. I think everyone on this thread can agree with that one!

But the question is, does the higher mass offset the lower velocity for damage causing purposes? And if so, to what extent? I feel my “club†example shows that the HERO precedent is higher mass is more important than higher velocity. But looking at bullet damage is apples to oranges when comparing to OoO damage, IMHO. Because Killing Damage uses a significantly different mechanic than normal damage. That’s what I was getting at with piercing vs bashing.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

Have to say I agree with Shrike’s general feelings on why objects of opportunity (OoO) should, at least some of the time, generate “bonus†dice of damage, over and above STR damage. Though I do have issues with his system (more on that to follow). And I would not go as far as he on converting damage (for instance, I would not convert a stop sign to killing damage, even though I can see his logic in saying the edge is analogous to an axe).

Also, I have to agree with Shrike that you trying to bring too much physics into this Phil. Have to admit my eyes glazed over going through the Force…Mass...Hardness…etc post. (No offense, I’m sure some have felt the same about my own long-winded posts).

Anyway, I think you may be overcomplicating things.

Now on to some specific responses…

(* not all bricks are necessarily superstrong).

I beg to differ. According to the intro to The Ultimate Brick, the definition of “Brick†is “Slang term for a character whose main attribute is high STR.†It is true that not all Bricks are highly resilient, but they are all very strong, by definition. Anyplace I use the term ‘brick’, I am referring to a high STR character.

Not in practice. Few Items have enough DEF to be truly effective in the hands of a superstrong character.

There are plenty of objects that have 3 or 4 DEF. That’s like giving a “free†haymaker. Now, if you limit the d6 from the object to its DEF+BOD (or slightly more), then it will be true that superstrong characters will have trouble finding objects that will be more effective than their regular STR damage.

On the plus side, the damage from objects used in this fashion is basically "Cream" since the character's STR damage likely exceeds or at least cuts into an opponents defenses, so the item damage is extra above that. Even a few d6 additional damage can have a huge effect.

 

As far as it making "bricks" to powerful, not really. All characters get the same bonus from using objects as weapons. The only difference is that the "brick" probably paid for more strength. So they get the same "add" from a similar object as a weaker character, the only difference being that they are able to use heavier objects than a weaker character; a privelege for which they paid for in the form of their higher strength.

I agree that both high and low STR characters can take advantage of your system, as it should be. But what I said is it makes Bricks too effective. Only Bricks are likely to have their STR damage at or close to campaign DC limits. So when they use OoO to add damage, they will be exceeding the normal limits. Lower STR characters using OoO will most likely not be exceeding the regular DC limits. And as you stated, just a few D6 of “cream†damage can have a huge effect.

Now, with “my†system, Bricks can also exceed the regular DC limits. But the number of extra D6s will usually be lower than what they would get with your system, plus they may suffer a number of CV penalties. I do not believe your system imposes any extra CV penalties to act as a mitigating factor.

On the downside there is excessive property and collateral damage to contend with and the negative image involved with smashing up cars, dumpsters, lightpoles, and so forth. And heaven help the hero that chucks a mailbox full of mail -- thats a felony

Agreed, this can be an effective limiter to heroic characters, particularly Bricks, using OoO as weapons indiscriminately. It applies equally to both our systems. But I’d be careful in applying it too strictly. If the character is fighting someone of really serious threat level, like Dr Destroyer or Mechanon, then I think the authorities and public opinion might be more forgiving of collateral damage.

Also, since its based on DEF, not DEF+BODY, a School Bus and a metal pole will offer about the same bonus -- its the material strength, not the size or mass thats being factored in. The main difference is that the School Bus is large enough to be an AoE.

Well, as I’ve mentioned in my debate with Phil, I find that systems that don’t factor BOD into the damage equation unrealistic. I do agree that DEF should be the dominant factor.

Another advantage the higher BOD, in both our systems, is that the object is likely to last for more swings before being destroyed.

In UNTIL: DoF, the U-GEM-E Laser Rifle (pg 82) has the No Range Modifier advantage and +3 PSLs vs the Range Modifier. But doesn’t a power with the No Range Modifier advantage have, well, no range modifiers, rendering the PSLs superfluous?

The variant of the weapon with HUD aiming replaces the NRM advantage with the Line of Sight advantage. But LOS is also supposed to have no range modifiers, so the PSLs would have no utility for that variant either, right?

The Ultimate Brick includes the "Brick Trick" of Missileer (pg 59), which is defined as PSLs vs. the OCV penalties for throwing unbalanced and/or non-aerodynamic objects. The different options give a range from +4 to +12. But isn't the maximum penalty for throwing unbalanced and/or non-aerodynamic objects a minus 4? So that any PSLs more than +4 are overkill, that will never come into play?

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

I allow objects used in this manner to add a number of d6 equal to their DEF up to double the STR of the weilder, and apply 1/2 the BODY damage inflicted to the target to the object if the target is knocked back, and all of the BODY damage if the target is not knocked back.

Certainly very quick, easy, and playable. But it allows strong characters to greatly increase their damage output with no apparent drawbacks (unless there are other aspects you left out for brevity). It seems to me that using it as written would make Bricks too effective.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

Thank you for your well-thought-out reply.

Whew, after posting, I wondered if I came across too snippy, which wasn’t my intent. Even though we tend to disagree here, I do enjoy the debate.

Yes, but that's already taken into consideration by the STR of the wielder. I can heave a fist-sized piece of concrete harder than I could a cinder block. If I simply let them both fall on your head, the cinder block will obviously do more damage, paralleled by the fact that it took more force (STR) to lift it over your head. However, if I use my full STR to swing the cinder block it will have the same momentum as the fist-sized rock swung with my full STR. The more STR used to lift the object, the less is left over to increase the force of the swing. Remember the recent scandal over corked baseball bats? A lighter weight bat can be swung faster. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. The lower the mass (BODY) the higher the velocity you can achieve with the same STR. A bullet from a gun has very little mass (probably <1 BODY), but it can kill because of its high velocity. If the bullet was ten times heavier, the same force provided by the exploding gunpowder would only give it one tenth of the velocity.

Unless I misunderstood something about your system, a STR 10 person wielding a DEF 5, BOD 2 object will do the same damage as he would wielding a bigger, heavier object of the same material (say DEF and BOD both 5). I do not think that passes the real world reality test. (This assumes that the STR 10 person can easily lift both objects. But that’s a safe assumption, since a DEF 5, BOD 6 large bell can be lifted by STR 2.)

While it is true that you can swing the lighter object faster, is it faster enough to equal the additional damage imparted by greater mass? In HERO terms, the answer seems to be No. Look at the clubs weapon table. All the clubs have the same DEF. The larger clubs have more BOD and weigh more. And the larger clubs do more damage, despite the fact that one can swing the smaller clubs faster. So in HERO terms, it seems that greater mass has more effect on increasing damage potential than swinging faster.

Taking you corked baseball bat example, I’ve read the issue with corked bats is that being lighter, they allow the hitter to get around quicker on the ball. Which means they are more likely to get a solid hit, but not that they are really going to hit the ball any further than the same quality hit with a normal bat. So in game terms, the lighter bat increases CV, but not damage.

And the bullet does not do its damage by “bashing†into its target, like the swung objects of opportunity do. It does its damage by piercing the flesh and doing internal damage (hence it’s a killing attack). True, rubber bullets do their damage by “bashing†despite their small mass. But they have greater velocity than “muscle power†can generate.

Good point. So I guess DEF doesn't reflect hardness as much as I had stated. Hmmm... Maybe there should be a "hardness rating" for objects in addition to its DEF. More work and more complication, I know. But this is an area of HERO that I have long felt needs work. As I mentioned on another thread.

The Ultimate Object anyone? Seriously, wasn’t there a HERO Guide to Everyday Objects eBook planned at one time? Scrapped I guess when they decided not to do more eBooks. In any case, I agree that this is an area of HERO that could use more work.

Not really. You just need to know how much total STR the wielder is using, as long as it's at least as much as it would take to pick up the object. The Strength Chart in FREd has plenty of examples to compare, and TUB has even more.

True, if the wielder wants to do maximum damage. But what if he wants to minimize END usage by just using enough STR to pick up the object? Then you need to know exactly how much STR he needs to pick up the object. While the tables in FRED and TUB have plenty of examples, it still could be difficult to determine the exact STR to lift something if it is not one of the given examples. My/Hugh’s system only requires you know if can be lifted with casual STR, which is much easier to determine quickly.

Believe it or not, balance/playability is also my primary goal. But to acheive it, I want to start with maximum realism, and then adjust it for balance and simplify for playability as necessary. That way, when you want "absolute" realism, you've got it. And when you only want as much realism as practical, you know where to start from. In order to write good science fiction, first learn as much as possible about science fact.

Fair enough. But I don’t find this system more realistic, as I mentioned earlier in this post, I think it fails a simple reality check. And I also find it less balanced. It’s probably close in playability to the system I favor.

Also, I just thought of another thing I find somewhat objectionable about your system. In yours, the damage done by objects is equally dependent of the objects DEF as it is on the wielder’s STR. In fact, it is more dependent on DEF, since the amount of STR the character can use is limited by the object’s BOD. In my system, the damage is primarily determined by the wielder’s STR, with a small bonus based on DEF/BOD, and limited by the total DEF/BOD of the object. In other words, my system is more wielder-centric, while yours in more object-centric. IMHO anyway.

I guess not, but I wasn't really talking about specific genres. If you get hit by a train going 60 mph or if you're going 60 mph and hit an immobile barrier, it's going to hurt. If you're well-armored, your body is going to hit against the inside of the armor, having instantly accelerated from 0-60 mph, (or decelerated from 60-0). Even if your armor is well-padded or is an inherent part of your skin, your delicate internal organs are going to be damaged by the sudden jolt.

 

Now granted, in a comic-book superhero genre, I would allow Ironman, Superman, the Thing, etc. to pretty much bounce the damage from being hit by a train. But again, I want to start with realism and then suspend whatever parts of it are not in genre.

I agree with your points here. In fact, this is one of the main reasons I dislike the HERO System falling damage rules. Not only is the damage too little, things like Armor give too much protection against it. There was an old DH article redefining Falling Damage as partly an NND does BODY attack. Unfortunately, this article, and all others earlier than mid-1999, were lost at some point during the Cybergames era.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

I have to disagree with the use of BODY at all in determining bonus damage. I don't think that a 40 BOD 0 DEF giant sack of feathers should do any bonus damage at all.

Hmmm, I think Hugh has already mentioned the caveat that the GM needs to use some judgment for unusual objects. So a giant sack of feathers would not get any bonus damage, except perhaps to determine knockback only.

Also, the use of BODY in the bonus dice calculations is due to the fact that, to a large extent, BODY is an abstraction for mass for inanimate objects. There are exceptions of course, such as heavy objects with delicate workings (high mass, low BOD), but that’s where GM judgment comes in. But think of a cinderblock vs a fist sized piece of concrete. They have the same DEF, but the cinderblock will cause more damage when you hit someone over the head with it, due to its higher mass, represented by higher BOD.

IMO, the hardness of an object is best represented by it's DEF alone.

Agreed, but I think the BOD/mass of an object can lead to “bonus damage†as well, you don’t. Instead, you use BOD/mass as a limiting factor, in point 9.

It seems to me that your formula maxes out too quickly. I'd start the bonus damage a little higher.

And I think your system accelerates damage too quickly. Your 30 STR guy just doubled his damage output by picking up a girder. Too effective, IMHO.

Items made of leather, rubber, rope, or other "tough but flexible" materials (2-3 DEF) shouldn't do any bonus damage. Only rigid items like wood, metal, stone, (4+ DEF) should start to do bonus damage. So my formula would be (DEF-2)/2, either round down or use half dice, as you prefer.

Glass is DEF 1, Bone is DEF 2. Items made from either should generate bonus damage, though they will probably break themselves in the process. “Tough but flexible†is more a property of the specific object material, not the DEF itself. Again, GM’s judgment may be needed, particularly at the low end of the DEF scale.

Here is an even more radical idea I had (I only call it more radical because it gets farther away from the printed rules, but IMO gets closer to reality):

 

1) An object used as a weapon has a STR minimum = the STR needed to lift it.

2) Real Physics: the force (STR) needed to lift an object up is the same as the force (weight) that the object exerts down.

3) Therefore, if you let the object weapon simply "fall" on your target, letting the weight of the object do all the work, it will do the same amount of damage as the STR you used to lift it.

4) If you have additional STR, you may use it to increase the amount of force/damage done with the object.

5) The object will do additional damage based on how hard it is.

6) How hard it is is based on it's DEF.

7) Therefore the amount of damage done will be (up to) your STR/5 + the objects DEF in d6. You need not use any additional STR beyond that needed to lift the object.

8) The object will take damage on every swing, subject to its own DEF and BODY. Thus if the STR used greatly exceeds the minimum needed, the object will likely not last long.

9) The maximum STR damage is equal to the BODY (which reflects the mass or substance) of the object.

10) You pay END for the entire amount of STR used (STR to lift + additional force applied with any STR over the minimum).

An interesting system. Whether or not its more “realistic†than the one Hugh and I have been batting around is a debatable point. But I do think yours is less playable. Its more cumbersome (not that ours isn’t somewhat cumbersome) and you need to the exact STR needed to lift something. As I mentioned in my last post, needing to know more or less exactly what something weighs can be problematic to determine quickly.

I just throw this idea out there because I think it's realistic, but I don't necessarily think it's balanced for game play (especially at superheroic levels of play). I think the ideal is to first determine the most realistic system, and then make exceptions/restrictions based on various genres.

Well, as I mentioned, I find the increased realism debatable. And I don’t think it’s balanced, as it can lead to vastly higher damage totals particularly in the Superheroic genre. And that’s the genre such rules will find the most play. My ideal is balance/playability, with realism a secondary goal. Particularly when realism is so arguable.

Oh, and then there's:

11) Sharp, pointy objects do the equivalent DC of killing damage.

11a) Extremely sharp, and very strong objects may even do Armor Piercing damage.

11b) Soft objects may have Reduced Penetration.

11c) Very large, solid, rigid objects may do Penetrating damage. Even Iron Man will feel it if he's hit by a train, simply do to the instantaneous acceleration.

11d) Sharp, pointy objects that aren't particularly strong (thin glass, jagged plastic, sharpened pencil, perhaps an icicle) will do killing damage with reduced penetration.

All good guidelines for GM judgment calls, except perhaps 11c. I don’t find that one particularly in genre.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

I'm inclined to leave the DCV penalties to Encumbrance (and/or the Grab penalties).

[/Quote]

 

While that’s certainly doable, I’d personally prefer to stay away from Encumbrance rules in a Supers game. Just too many additional on-the-fly calculations. Plus, up to now, we’ve been sticking with modifiers based on if something can be lifted with Casual STR, which is usually pretty easy to eye-ball. But with Encumbrance, you need a better idea of exactly how much something weighs, which may not be so easy to quickly dermine.

 

What if we try to dovetail this with the existing mechanic for thrown objects, replacing "aerodynamic" with "heavy" (cannot be lifted with casual STR).

 

The present system imposes a -2 OCV penalty if an object is unbalanced, and a -2 if it is not aerodynamic. What if we add a -2 penalty if the object cannot be lifted with casual STR (one handed casual STR if the character wants to use only one hand), and restrict the "aerodynamic" penalty to thrown objects?

 

Workable, but I want to impose DCV penalties or heavy/unwieldy items since I’m not using Encumbrance. I’d go with:

Item is unbalanced: -1 OCV / -1 DCV

Item is heavy (can’t be lifted with Casual STR): -1 OCV / -1 DCV

Item is unwieldy: For each doubling of area (starting with Fills two hexes): -1 OCV / -1 DCV

 

All penalties are cumulative. All three apply when using items as a H-to-H weapon, only the last two apply to thrown objects (but thrown objects are subject to the existing unbalanced/unaerodynamic penalties as appropriate).

 

I also hadn't considered better granularity than 1d6 at a time. What about 1d6 per 3 DEF, and 1d6 per 6 BOD, and using KA DC's for granualrity so 1 DEF = +1 STUN; 2 DEF = 1/2d6 STUN; 3 DEF = 1d6. Full increments of 2 BOD would have the same additions.

 

That 3 DEF, 3 BOD object would do 1d6 for STR, +1 STUN for 2-3 BOD = 1d6 +1. A 5 DEF, 8 BOD object would get 5 "DC" for DEF and 4 "DC" for BOD = +3d6

 

I like this. I like it a lot.

 

As for capping it, "Joe Average" with his 8 STR needs a 3 DEF 2 BOD slab of plywood to add 1d6 +1 to his 1 1/2d6 STR damage and max out at 3d6 if we use double STR. A 10 STR "above average" guy caps out with a thin strip (1 BOD) of heavy fibreglass (6 DEF). To me, this means we either need to raise the cap on STR from your proposal, or raise the DEF/BOD required to add each d6 to ensure a crowbar will be more effective than, say, a yardstick.

 

I’m perfectly OK with 8 STR Joe Average capping out at 3d6, it matches up exactly with a STR Min 8 “club†from the weapons table. A yardstick is what, 1 or 2 DEF, 1 BOD? Don’t think we need to worry about it doing as much as a DEF 5 BOD 3 crowbar. But your thin strip of heavy fiberglass did make me think of something. An item with significantly less BOD than DEF should do less damage, since it lacks the mass to use its DEF to full effect. I’d propose that for each three points BOD is less than DEF, an object loses two “DCâ€. So that thin strip would be 6 DC (from 6 DEF) + 0 DC (from 1 BOD) – 2 DC (from BOD 5 less than DEF)= 4DC, or 1d6+1. The crowbar is 5 DC (DEF) + 1 DC (BOD) – 0 DC (BOD 2 less than DEF) = 6 DC or 2D6.

 

If the weapon takes normal damage from the STR used in the attack, and it's swung with STR greater than its combined DEF and BOD, on average it will break. Consider a 3 DEF, 3 BOD object which adds 1d6 +1. Swung at 15 STR, an average blow will inflict 3 BOD - no damage to the object - using only STR, or 4 BOD if we add bonus dice (it can last 3 swings before hitting 0 BOD).

 

Whether or not we add bonus dice, the object will break if swung with 30 STR or more, as it takes 6d6 damage (or 7d6 +1) = 6 (or 7) BOD, reducing it to zero.

 

Inflicting the same damage as the STR used to swing the object, at standard effect, means it will take BOD equal to its DEF + BOD if swung at STR equal to 5x [DEF + BOD]. I like this approach because it creates a range between the current "object undamaged" up to damage of DEF + BOD and "object broken" at the next damage die. You can use actual BOD rolled just as easily as "standard effect",. in which case your "at least 1 BOD taken per d6 done over DEF + BOD is another reasonable addition. I'm inclined to use "standard effect" for simplicity, since we're already pretty complex.

 

I’m not sure if we are in agreement here yet or not. I’m still in the camp that all the dice used to cause damage to the target should cause damage to the object. But good point that, on average, a blow at greater than DEF+BOD will destroy the object anyway. So I think we can drop any auto-break or “at least one BOD per extra d6†conditions.

 

Since we need to roll the damage to see how much the attacker inflicts on his target, we may as well use that roll to determine damage to the object as well, instead of using standard effect.

 

Under the current rules, a 3 BOD, 3 DEF object can be swung at 20 STR forever - it will never break, even though it should take 1 BOD per hit, on average.

 

I’m not sure what you mean here. Non-weapon objects used as impromptu “clubs†do take damage when used as weapons, at the GMs discretion. The amount of damage depends on how “weapon-like†the object is. (FRED, pg 253).

 

While I see the logic and consistency here, extrapolating it means we should base END for a thrown object on both the range and the conversion of STR into an area of effect. At present, throwing the object costs no extra END at all. Let's stick with your mechanic on the basis it has some correlation in game terms, and apply it to both ranged and HTH strikes. It's more intuitive, so one less table, to get to no more than +2 END. [so with standard rounding, that's to +1d6 0 END; 1d6+1 to 3d6 = 1 END; 3d6 +1 to 4d6 = 2 END, right? Nothing's ever easy!]

 

I agree, any “bonus dice†added to a thrown object should cost END, just like using the object in H-to-H combat. On the END cost, any bonus “diceâ€, even just +1 pip, cost 1 END (based on END cost of the Hand-to-Hand Attack power). So +1 pip to 3d6 is 1 END, and 3d6+1 to 4d6 is 2 END.

 

Though, you have me thinking that the extra area large objects allow the attacker to effect should have an END cost too. While I would not want to calculate the END cost of the AoE advantage on STR on the fly, maybe a simple formula like for every doubling of size, add +1 END. And remember, I’m using the optional rule described on FRED pg 253 for large objects, where the attacker does not attack DCV 3 as in a true AoE attack, but instead gets an OCV bonus based to the size of the object he is attacking with. So I have to know how many doublings there are anyway, to determine the OCV bonus. If a brick wants to do true AoE attacks with objects of opportunity, he must pay for the power.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

First, let me apologize if I confused anyone following the thread with the editing of one of my examples a couple of posts ago. I had something of a mental meltdown yesterday, and thought I had made a math error. I hadn’t, but when I went to fix it, I introduced one.

It’s all fixed now.

Back to the discussion at hand.

Doesn't bother me at all. Treating a boockase or lampost like a baseball bat sits wrong with me, as does treating a hurled buick as a hurled rock.

 

Thinking on it, though, I think I would rephrase the rule as "A character must either have weapon familiarity with any object used as a weapon (whether an "everyman" familiarity like Club or Thrown Rock, a purchased weapon familiarity like "1 Pt: WF: Hurled automobile" or an autonmatic WF from purchasing a power with a focus), or suffer the usual -3 Non Proficiency penalty. For purposes of these rules, any object which is balanced and aerodynamic, and can be lifted with the character's casual STR is considered a "thrown rock". Any object which is reasonably balanced and could readily be swung, is no longer than the character's height and can be lifted with casual STR (such as a baseball bat or a fireplace poker, or even a lamppost for a sufficiently large character) is considered a "club". Items not fitting within these categories do not fall within the "everyman" proficiencies.

Think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. But, even though I don’t think the Unfamiliar Weapon penalty should apply, I’d certainly be amenable to a Weapon Size/Shape penalty due to unwieldiness, and that would have the benefit of allowing DCV penalties too.

How ‘bout this. If the object doesn’t fit within your criteria for a “thrown rockâ€/â€club†as described above, but can be lifted with Casual STR, the character suffers a -1 OCV, -1 DCV Weapon Size/Shape penalty. If the object weighs more than can be lifted with Casual STR, the penalties increase to -2 OCV, -2 DCV. If an object is particularly unbalanced and/or unwieldy, add an additional -1 OCV, -1 DCV.

I am more inclined to extend the logic of the FAQ to the use of characters as a weapon. That is, once you Grab that character, you can Squeeze or Throw him for damage, as this is part of the Grab action. However, any other action (including any action which would require a separate attack roll) cannot be undertaken until the character's next phase.

Agreed.

I'm inclined to agree, with one addendum: If the object is reasonably balanced, and can reasonably be held using one hand, the character suffers no CV penalties for holding the object if it can be lifted one-handed with casual STR. Thus, a character grabbing a sword, bat or tire iron would suffer the -1 OCV, -2 DCV penalty in the phase he picks up the object (stooping to pick it up). After this, he could hold it in one hand at no penalty.

 

This is similar to your rule, but eliminates the Casual STR - 10 factor. Isn't there a rule somewhere on 1 handed lifts? If not, there should be.

Sounds good. One handed lifts are STR-5 (TUB pg 9, and I think other books too). But is one handed Casual Strength (STR-5)/2 or (STR/2)-5? I’d push for the latter, as the former breaks down at the low end. For instance, for STR 10, the former leads to one handed casual strength lifting a small refrigerator (37.5 kg), while the latter a full suitcase or a TV set (25 kg). Actually, (STR/2)-5 is pretty similar to my proposed (STR/2)-10. I think (STR/2)-10 works even better at the low end, allowing a something only as heavy as a machine gun or dining room chair (12.5 kg) to be lugged around with no penalty at STR 10. But I can live with (STR/2)-5 since it’s more consistent with other uses of casual strength in our proposed house rules.

This grants the max to anything 8 DEF or higher, while requiring truly massive BOD to have any impact. Toying with it, what about DEF/3 (normal rounding applies) + BOD/10 (always rounds down)? And the usual caveat about common and dramatic sense (eg. a 40 BOD sack of feathers is not going to add 4d6 damage).

For BODY/10, don’t you mean always rounds up? Otherwise a BODY of 1-9 will generate no extra damage. If you mean BOD of 1-10 = +1d6, 11-20 = +2d6, etc, then that works fine with me. The only issue I have is my system easily generated ½ dice, while this one does just whole dice. Depending on how you feel about ½ dice, this is good or bad. But I like the granularity of half dice. Easily fixed: DEF/3 + ½ d6 for each 5 BOD. So a DEF 3, BOD 3 object generates +1 ½ d6. A DEF 5, BOD 8 object generates +3d6.

(1) The maximum is a matter of taste. +4d6 is no less reasonable than +2 or +3, and provides a bit more range for truly massive objects. Your comment begs the question whether one can haymaker with an object. I would say yes, provided the object can be lifted with casual STR (lower STR implies you're pretty much "giving all you've got" just to use it as a weapon).

Good idea.

No Haymakering with an object if you can’t lift it with casual strength.

(2) I would eliminate this restriction. A normal human has STR 8 (1.5 DC) - I would not limit them to 2d6 or 2d6+1. A "str MIN" approach might work, but is probably too cumbersome. hmmm...maybe "If the object exceeds Casual STR lift, reduce the attacker's STR damage by 1d6. If it exceeds 75% of lift capacity, the attacker's STR is reduced by half for damage". But a fairly light object with high DEF should add damage in pretty much anyone's hands.

I don’t agree here. I don’t think crowbar made of adamantium (sp?) is going to generate any more damage in the hands of a STR 10 person than one made of iron. The low STR just can’t generate enough force to take advantage of the higher DEF of adamantium. I’d be OK with making the restriction more generous and allowing someone to double their STR damage with objects, instead of a max of 1 ½ times STR damage. Actually, increasing the max to double ties in pretty well with the Clubs weapon table values. From the table a STR Min 10 club does 4d6N and a STR Min 15 club does 6d6N.

(3),(4) What about just "the weapon takes normal damage from the STR used in the attack, based on the standard effect rules". Thus, 1 BOD per 5 STR rolled. I'm inclined not to include the weapon's bonus damage in the damage to the weapon because this implies the higher DEF of the weapon makes it easier to break. The knockback issue is too much added complexity for the added realism, in my opinion, so I would call it an "optional rule" for lack of a better term.

Since, by the standard rules, an object can’t do more than DEF+BOD in damage, I figured there should be some drawback to allowing an object to exceed DEF+BOD damage. But perhaps “auto-break†was too harsh. Maybe tone it down to for each d6 over DEF+BOD, the object takes a minimum of 1 BODY in damage. So if a DEF 6 BOD 5 object is swung for 13d6, it will take at least 2 BOD, even if the attacker rolls 13 ones. And I would definitely count the bonus dice when calculating object damage. The whole concept of bonus dice is something we are adding to the rules to the benefit of the attacker. An increased chance of object breakage is a small price to pay for that.

Oh, and the KB thing is certainly optional.

(5) On the one hand, I think an END cost makes sense. On the other hand, that END cost arises from use of STR to hold the object, so contradicts the general rule that STR costs END only once per phase. Also, a lightweight "adamantium" staff (DEF 12+) and a very heavy, lower DEF bus both add 4d6 - why would they both cost the same END?

 

What about applying it with the "Hold rules" we've set out above? If holding the object would cause no DCV penalty, using it costs no END. If you would be -1/-2, it costs 1 END. If you would be at 1/2 DCV, it costs 2 END. Same range, with a different basis?

Actually, I based the END cost on the equivalent number of dice in the Hand-to-Hand Attack power. Since the “bonus dice†of damage are basically “free†dice of HA, from a game mechanics standpoint. I would think that basing the END cost on weight of the object runs even more afoul of the general rule that STR costs END only once per phase. So while I see the logic of your idea, for game balance and consistency reasons I think the END cost should be based on the number of dice. Not that one or two END is going to make a difference in game balance.

Hmmm...I think we're getting somewhere here!

I think so!

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

Well said logomancer, I couldn’t agree more, with your entire post. One elaboration:

The character point expenditure would be required to do it as an attack, i.e., happens in 1/2 a second without consent and bam! you're stuck in a lightpole. The fact that there's a character point expenditure is that it's a practiced move that you can repeat as often as you want.

This concept also applies to using objects of opportunity as weapons. So if a character buys AoE as a Naked Advantage on his STR, with a limitation that it requires appropriate objects of opportunity, the Grabbing of said objects becomes 0 phase and none of the CV penalties of the Grab maneuver apply.

Similarly, an AoE EB defined as throwing appropriate objects of opportunity (the “Detroit Missileâ€) would avoid the unbalanced/unaerodynamic penalties as well as the regular Grab restrictions.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

Hugh , after I posted, I thought of a few modifications to my proposal, but you beat me to it. But before I go into that, I’d like to elaborate on an area we disagree.

I would waive the penalty for objects which are "similar to" clubs. These would need to fit the size constraint (a light pole is too unwieldy, despite being the right shape - try swinging a 10' curtain rod), and approximate shape (chairs and bookcases aren't even close).

Do I take this to mean that you would not count the use a chair or bookcase as a “club†for purposes of the free weapons proficiency everyone has with “Clubs� Just want to point out that is definitely a house rule, as it is the exact opposite of what the rules in the UMA specify.

Admittedly, it’s less clear if that rule would also apply to light poles and buses wielded by Bricks. But it seems to me that the spirit of that UMA rule is that any simple object a character is using to bash someone over the head with counts as a “club†for proficiency purposes.

Oh, and the free proficiency everyone has with Thrown Rocks extends to “other crude missile weapons†(FREd, pg54) so I would think it applies to a brick tossing a car.

First, I pulled this from the FAQ…

That FAQ ruling is interesting. It means it’s actually harder to Grab an inanimate object and throw it someone, than it is to Grab a struggling person and throw them at someone. That seems illogical, but as I said, I think the rules in Champions and TUB for using characters as weapons are too generous in this regard. Might post a question to Steve later to clarify.

But in any case, I totally agree with your ideas here:

(a) A half phase to Grab is required only if an attack roll is required for the Grab (eg. resisting characters, moving vehicles). Such an attack action also ends the grabber's phase (though he can still squeeze, or throw with no attack, if the Grab succeeds)

 

( Casual STR can be applied as a zero phase to break the object loose, uproot it or lift it. Otherwise, a half phase is required.

 

© Throwing or attacking with the object is a half phase attack action

 

JG: Finally, also noted in the FAQ, the DCV penalty changes from -2 DCV to 1/2 DCV if the grab has succeeded. This is in the text of the Grab maneuver, but isn't clear that it supersedes the -2 if the Grab is successful. I would suggest the OCV/DCV penalty applies only if the object Grabbed either requires an attack roll to be grabbed (a struggling character; a vehicle which is still trying to move) or requires more than casual STR to lift.

I hadn’t mentioned the ½ DCV “maintaining a Grab†penalties in my original post, because I didn’t think it applied in this situation. I thought about it some more and had decided to base its applicability on how heavy the object is, but you beat me to the punch with your post. I’d codify this as:

(d) If the character can lift the object with casual STR, he only suffers the normal CV penalties for the Grab maneuver while holding the object (-1 OCV, -2 DCV for regular Grab, Martial Grabs may differ). If the character needs to use more than Casual STR to lift the object, or the object required an attack roll as in (a), then he suffers the more restrictive “maintaining a grab†penalties (1/2 DCV, ½ OCV to attack other targets, full OCV to attack grabbee).

Of course, for small and light objects, there are no CV penalties for grabbing/holding it. Common sense can rule here, but if an actual value is needed, anything that can be lifted with (Casual STR)-10 might be good rule of thumb.

In regards to how much “bonus damage†to give objects of opportunity, I suggest this. The number of bonus dice equals the (DEF+(1 per 10 BODY))/2. Subject to these details:

(1) No more than +4d6 bonus dice. (This is more than Hugh suggests, and can obviously be lowered. I choose 4d6 since it matches up with the bonus from a Haymaker).

(2) The maximum STR+bonus dice equals normal STR dice x 1 ½.

(3) The maximum d6 an object can produce without automatically breaking is its DEF+BODY. It can generate up to DEF+BODY+bonus, but if the bonus is used the item automatically breaks.

(4) Even if the item does not automatically break, it still takes the same damage as it generates. If the attack produces no knockback, the object takes 1 1/2 times damage. The 1 ½ times damage also applies if the object is used to drive someone straight into the ground.

(5) END cost is +1 END per 2 bonus dice.

Some examples to illustrate.

• STR 10 character hits someone with a DEF 3 BODY 3 bar stool. The stool normally generates (3+1)/2=+2d6 bonus dice. But it only generates +1d6 in this case because 1 ½ times the characters normal STR damage of 2d6 is 3d6. A 15 STR character could get 1 1/6 d6 bonus dice for a total of 4 ¼ d6 and a STR 20 character could get the full +2d6 for a total of 6d6 (which is also the maximum the stool could generate without automatically breaking). A 25 STR character could generate 7d6 and a 30 STR character could generate the absolute max of 8d6, though again anything over 6d6 will automatically break the stool. A character of greater than 40 STR using the stool as a weapon will always do less damage than they could with a straight punch, but they still may have a reason to use it from time to time such as to avoid a damage shield. [edited to correct a math error and expand the STR examples][edit 2 - DOH! It was right the first time, edited it back to correctness]
  
• STR 60 character using a DEF 5 BODY 8 medium sized tree. Bonus dice equals (5+1)/2=3d6. So the character could attack for up to 12d6+3d6=15d6. But the DEF+BODY of the tree is 13, so if the character chooses to use more than 13d6, the tree will automatically splinter.
  
• STR 50 character using DEF 4 BODY 17 city bus. Bonus dice equal (4+2)=3d6. The character can swing the bus at a full 13d6, since it does not bump up against any of the maxima. Of course, the bus will be destroyed after two hits on average (avg BODY from 13d6=13, 13 minus 4 DEF equals 9 BODY taken per swing on average. 2x9=18, which is more than the 17 BODY of the bus).
  
• STR 50 character using a large vault door (16 DEF 9 BODY). Bonus dice equal (16+1)/2=8 1/2 d6, but 4d6 is the max. So he can swing the door at 14d6. The average hit won’t even damage the door, so he can swing it pretty much all day.
  

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

To me' date=' bashing someone with a big, hard object should do more damage, and hang the printed rules.[/quote']

 

I agree, but have some quibbles with other points.

 

 

Third, if you paid no points, the object is treated as a "weapon". Unless you have "WF: Bus" that means -3 OCV when you swing a bus. If you paid for a "brick trick" with weapons of opportunity, you paid points for the "weapon" and are familiar automatically.

 

Debatable. UMA page 115: "Non-Weapon Weapons are all considered Clubs.... and everyone automatically has Weapons Familiarity with Clubs."

 

Now this was written with "normal strength" characters using bookcases or sawhorses as weapons in mind, but it seems logical to extend to a Brick wielding a telephone pole or school bus.

 

Fourth, any use of objects should require that 1/2 phase to grab, 1/2 phase to uproot (and this is an attack action) and now you can use it as a weapon.

 

Again somewhat debatable. The sections on using Characters as Weapons in both Champions and The Ultimate Brick state that the Grabber can use the Grabbee as club/missile against another character in the same phase as the initial Grab is made.

 

Now, I personally feel this is bit much, and it does not specify what happens if the character needs to use his STR to "uproot" something. I would propose these house rules to tone down and clarify this.

 

If a character wants to make an attack with a grabbed object/character in the same phase as the initial grab was made, he can, but he attacks at 0 OCV if any of the following conditions are met:

• He needed to use STR to uproot or break off the object, such as snapping off a lightpole.
  
• He needed to make a normal attack roll to make the Grab. Typically this will only apply when grabbing another conscious character or a moving vehicle.
  
• He needs to use more than his casual STR to lift the object.
  

 

If none of those conditions are met, he can make an attack at normal OCV, but don't forget Grab itself is -1 OCV / -2 DCV maneuver. (Though the Grab CV penalties should be waived if the object is small/light enough, in the interest in common sense.)

 

Allowing surrounding terrain to convert STR to ranged AoE attacks at limited or no penalties (even if one does not allow added damage) seems, to me, to over-reward high STR. Meanwhile, saying a 10 STR mentalist can't enhance HTH damage by picking up a baseball bat or crowbar just bugs me.

 

Agreed. One way to make a Brick's AoE attacks with objects of opportunity less powerful is to use an option mentioned in the Weapon Size/Shape rules in FRED. Instead of attacking a DCV 3, the attacker gets an OCV bonus based on the size of the weapon

Re: What the heck is BODY anyways?

The idea that sometimes BODY represents “will to live†and other times physical size/mass, depending on character conception, got me thinking about a possible Phys Lim:

Physical Limitation: BODY represents 'Will to Live', not size/mass. 'Size/mass' body is X. (Infrequently, Slightly Impairing) – 5 points

‘X’ would be at least 5 points lower than the character’s listed BODY, with a maximum value of 12. (Figuring the max ‘size’ of a human being is around 12 BODY).

While big, tough, high BODY characters would not take this Disad, a small, wiry, but high BODY fighter might. It could also be taken even if a character does not buy up their BODY, such as one described as thin, petite woman. The player of such a character might not want a BODY score lower than the base of 10, even though the character is much smaller than the average person (and remember, average person BODY is 8).

Mechanically, the character’s regular BODY score would be used in most circumstances. The exceptions would be those cases where the “attack†is more against the physical mass of the character, as opposed to straight damage. Examples include most Transforms and some BODY Drains. Also such things as systems that use BODY as a factor to determine how fast some becomes intoxicated would use the lower score. Lastly, an attack such as tranquilizer dart defined as an NND or STUN Drain might get a bonus +1d6 vs. such a character. Note, this last effect should be limited to attacks vs. STUN, and not vs. other drugs such as an injection that Drains EGO. This is because the EGO Drain is not normally impacted by the BODY of a character, but STUN is, as a figured characteristic derived from BODY).

What do you all think? Good, bad, ‘eh’?

5E page 75 says that the Cumulative advantage cannot be used on Adjustment Powers that increase a characteristic such as Aid or Absorption, but that it is valid for Adjustment Powers that decrease a characteristic, and gives Suppress as an example. Page 163 also mentions that Cumulative is a valid Advantage for some Adjustment Powers.

But isn’t Suppress already inherently Cumulative? In fact, aren’t all the Adjustment Powers that decrease characteristics (Drain, Suppress, Transfer) inherently Cumulative? If I am correct about all Adjustment Powers that decrease characteristics already being Cumulative, isn’t the text on 75 and 163 mistaken, as there would then be no Adjustment Powers that could legally take the Advantage?

FRED pg 204 says that multiple slots in an Elemental Control can only be used in a Multiple Power Attack with GM permission. For the sake of this question, assume such permission has been granted.

Pg 234 says that if using two slots in the same power framework in an MPA, the character must have enough points in the framework to allocate to both. How, if at all, does this effect ECs? Are the EC powers at reduced effectiveness when used in a MPA, or at full strength?

A friend and I, both long time Hero gamers, were discussing Damage Shields. During our conversation, I realized he thought that Damage Shields only cost END on phases in which they were actually hit and the damage shield activated. (Not every phase they are active.) Once I pointed it out, he acknowledged they cost END every phase they are active per the 5th Ed rules, since Continuous/Constant powers cost END every phase. He maintained it was an ambiguous point in 4th Ed rules as the Damage Shield description never mentions END, Constant or Continuous. I’ve always played Damage Shields as costing END every phase.

Anybody else out there ever play Damage Shields as only costing END when they are hit?

As noted in the Rules FAQ, a target can take damage from a Damage Shield once for each time the character with the Damage Shield has to make an Attack Roll — thus, just one time for an Autofire or multiple-power attack, but potentially multiple times for Sweep.

I think the FAQ only talks about an attacker using a Multiple Power attack or Sweep to attack a Damage Shield protected character. My question dealt with the reverse, an attacker with an Offensive DS using a MPA or Sweep to attack.

But from your answer I gather the same priciple applies. I wasn't sure about Sweep, I thought that might be made an exception to avoid abuse. But I got it now. Thanks.

If a character has an Offensive Damage Shield and performs a Multiple Power attack on someone where each power involves touching/striking the target, does the target take the Damage Shield damage multiple times?

What about if instead of a Multiple Power attack, the attacker is Sweeping a punch to hit the same target multiple times?

How about if character A, with an Offensive Damage Shield, punches and is punched by Character B in the same segment. Does B take the DS damage twice?

Lastly, what if 6 agents surround Damage Shield man and strike him in the same segment, maybe even at the exact same time by coordinating. Do all 6 take the full DS damage?

For what its worth, my guesses are:

No

No (but not as sure)

Yes

Yes

When bought with the Ranged Advantage, can Adjustment Powers such as Drain be Missile Deflected? I assume yes, since the Missile Deflection rules say most powers with Ranged can be, and don’t list Adjustment Powers as an exception. But I just wanted to make sure. Thanks.

There was some discussion on the boards about the Two-Weapon Fighting skill, and how its cost is inefficient as compared to Combat Skill Levels with Sweep. Some optional remedies were suggested on the FAQ page:

Q: Why should a character buy Two-Weapon Fighting (10 points) when he can simply buy two 2-point Combat Skill Levels with Sweep, and define the special effect as “fighting with a weapon in each hand�

 

A: The cost for TWF is calculated based on CSLs to counteract the Sweep penalty, and Ambidexterity to counter the standard Off-Hand Penalty.

 

If you’re going to use the Sweep maneuver as a standard option in the campaign, the alternate route you suggest works better from a point-accounting standpoint.

 

However, not all campaigns use that Maneuver — it is specifically listed as optional — and for them, the more “traditional†TWF Skill might be appropriate even if characters normally cannot Sweep.

 

If you still want to use TWF as-is, but encourage people to take it instead of just two CSLs with Sweep, tack some other benefit onto it. For example, maybe if a character has TWF, he only suffers a -2 DCV penalty, instead of 1/2 DCV.

 

Q: Can a character with Two-Weapon Fighting Hold one of his attacks, or make one and then Abort the other to Block, or choose a Strike and Block as his two attacks?

 

A: Two-Weapon Fighting is based on, and uses, the mechanic for Rapid Fire/Sweep. As such, it constitutes a single maneuver. A character can’t Hold half of it, anymore than he could, for example, Hold half a Haymaker or half a Disarm. Similarly, he can’t Abort half of it, nor can he choose to perform a defensive action like Block — Sweep involves attacks, not defenses.

 

However, for those who think Two-Weapon Fighting is overpriced (see above), what this question describes — the ability to “split†the attack and Hold half, or Abort half — might be feasible as an “extra function†for the Skill, in the GM’s discretion.

These optional benefits for TWF also appear in FH5 on page 96.

Since I like the idea of TWF (despite its questionable historical realism), and do want to encourage players to take it instead of CSLs with Sweep, I’m inclined to allow both abilities. But some additional rules need to be placed around the second ability to spell it out more clearly.

• Whenever performing a maneuver that could be part of a TWF combination, the player must declare whether he is using TWF or taking a single action. If using TWF, any drawbacks (such as the –2 DCV) take effect immediately and last until his next phase.
  
• When making a TWF maneuver, a player may make a combo move (strike-strike, block-strike, bind-strike, etc) or make a single maneuver and hold the second. In the latter case, the held action cannot be taken until the next segment at the earliest. Of course, if the original maneuver was a block, additional blocks can be performed at the standard –2 per block without impacting the held action.
  
• Characters using TWF may perform a double block (a block-block combo). What this means is if they fail to block the attack with their initial roll, they may immediately attempt a second block against that attack. If a player declares a double block and succeeds with the first block attempt, then the second block can be held. A character who declared a double block can also double block additional attacks that are launched at him before his next phase, but the –2 per additional block penalty can add up very quickly.
  
• A player who decides to perform a maneuver and hold the second cannot change his mind and make it a combo move if the initial maneuver does not work out as expected.
  

These two additional abilities, particularly the second, make TWF fairly powerful. To keep it balanced, I’m thinking of adding a couple of new restrictions.

[*]In some other game systems, TWF abilities are typically limited to lighter weapons, and I visualize TWF as being done with relatively light weapons. But by the current rules it is just as easy to use TWF with a pair of Battle Axes as it is a Rapier and dagger (assuming the character is strong enough). I propose penalties for using the skill with heavier weapons. At first I thought about basing the limits on the STR Mins of the weapons, but I think the new weapons tables are basically pretty whacked in that regard (but that’s another rant). So I settled on Damage Classes instead. If the combined DC total of the primary and secondary weapon is 6 or less, there is no penalty. Any greater and the following OCV penalties are incurred:

- DC total 7: -1 OCV primary weapon, -2 secondary

- DC total 8: -2 OCV primary weapon, -4 secondary

- DC total 9: -3 OCV primary weapon, -6 secondary

Etc.

For the purpose of this rule, the DC rating of a weapon should be modified as follows:

- Add 1 to the DC rating of a weapon that has +1 Stun Mult or Indirect (Hammers and Flails) or 2 if it has both.

- Add 2 to the DC rating for AP or Penetrating weapons.

- Add 1 DC for L weapons, add 2 for L2 weapons

- Subtract 1 for S weapons.

Penalty skill levels can be used to offset these minuses.

If using an alternate weapons table which bases the STR Min off of active points, like Geoff Speare’s, you can use combined STR Min to set the penalty thresholds with greater granularity.

[*]TWF is a highly specialized skill, you can’t do it with just any two weapons. When purchased, you must specify the pair of weapons it works with. Additional pairs can be purchased for one CP each. Using the skill with weapon pairs not purchased entails the standard –3 unfamiliar weapon penalty. GMs can optionally reduce the penalty somewhat if the weapons used are similar to pairs that the character knows.

[/list=1]

Since limiting effective use of TWF to lighter weapons is a significant restriction, you might want to tack an additional bonus to the skill. I’m thinking of allowing the Rapid Attack skill to cancel the DCV penalty in addition to making TWF a half phase action.

The intended result of these suggestions is to make TWF “feel†distinctly different than Sweep. And note that CSLs with Sweep still have their place. Characters wielding heavy weapons can make good use of them, though the practitioner of TWF will be more versatile.

In addition to comments on this proposal, I’d be interested in hearing other’s experiences with the TWF skill and any special rules they introduced for it.