Toxxus

What I want to happen, so badly, is for Sandor to win with fire.  It would be so fitting to destroy his brother the same way his brother scarred him mentally & physically for life.
 
Even more fitting if this involved a flaming sword as Sandor became a chosen one of the Lord of Light.

What I want to happen, so badly, is for Sandor to win with fire.  It would be so fitting to destroy his brother the same way his brother scarred him mentally & physically for life.
 
Even more fitting if this involved a flaming sword as Sandor became a chosen one of the Lord of Light.

Perhaps going back to older edition Growth or Density Increase would give a good starting place if you're wanting to model increase in DEF to scale with increases in mass and BODY.
 
Old-school DI (only because I know the old rules by heart; I'd have to look up the new ones): Every level of DI doubled the mass (you'd have to wing it to make a "thickness" calculation: twice as thick?  Likely twice the mass, right?) and provided +1 BODY and 3rPD and 3rED.
 
Old-school Growth:  Every doubling of the mass provided +2 BODY and +1 PD and +1 ED.  Twice the BODY and far less defense.
 
I would postulate (perhaps incorrectly) that the BODY difference is related directly to the fact that in Growth the physical form is no more dense; there is simply more of it.  Much like making something thicker: you're increasing the volume taken up by the material, but are not increasing the material in the present volume.  Likely this is why the DEF climb is much lower as well: the increase in mass allows for some sort of "reinforcing" of the DEF, but as the density hasn't changed, the change is not drastic until the mass is _considerably_ higher.  Making the material _more dense_, however, has a radical effect on DEF in relation to mass, and I submit that this is because the physical properties of the matter in question have actually _changed_, as opposed to simply increasing the amount of it.
 
I don't know if there's any point in pursuing this line of thought; it was just something that occurred to me.

She's recovering nicely now though she was extra spicy for a day or two.
 

Decades ago when I was on a swim team I had a similar issue.  Treading water was difficult and I could only do backstroke if I kept a certain amount of speed going.  If I paused my feet would swing down and I'd drop to the bottom of the pool like a lazy yard dart.
 
I do miss having a body fat that low though. 

Yeah, I agree that thickness should have an effect on DEF as well as BODY.  I just kinda adjust it as needed.  One thing that could help is The Ultimate Brick, which has an Expanded Object Table on pages 107-112.  For example it doesn't just have a DEF/BODY for a brick wall like the main rule book.  It breaks it down to Thin/Small Brick Wall, Average Brick Wall, and Large Thick Brick Wall and they have different DEF as well as different BODY.  It may not be as comprehensive as you would like but it does have a good number examples of various walls with DEF based on thickness in addition to BODY.  I think it is a good guideline.  Just note that if you use 6th Edition, The Ultimate Brick is a 5th Edition supplement but It is still quite serviceable for this matter.

All Hail No One, 182,283rd of her Name, Taker of Faces, No Sayer to the God of Death, Needler of Many, Queen of the Andals and the First Men...

Geez, Toxxus, sorry to hear that. Hope it's not as bad as it sounds

I hope your wife recovers quickly, Toxxus.

You two are not alone. 
 
I have a strong suspicion that this is how we _all_ handle it, guided by whatever logic crutches make us feel good about our decisions.

I loved Endgame for what it was: an almost perfectly executed resolution to an epic superhero story arc that included one of the darkest cliffhangers in movie history. And I know it was almost perfect because of how hard people have to work to find something to complain about. Mantis and Shuri didn’t get enough frames in a film that included literally every major character in the MCU? Thor was overweight?  Paradoxes resulting from time travel? This was a superhero movie that literally made people weep with joy!  

Steve Rogers didn't go back to the 1970s. He went back to the 1940s, to be with Peggy after WW II, picking up his life where he left off when he was frozen. That's clearly the era depicted when we see them dancing together at the end of the movie. For a man a hundred years old (born 1918), I thought he looked pretty good.
 
Cap's shield in the MCU isn't the unique alloy from the comics, it's "just" vibranium, and no more "indestructible" than any other vibranium. Granted, that's still very tough. MCU Cap has also been knocked flying before when his shield was hit with powerful explosions. Besides, the shield being shredded is a classic image of Avengers defeat, including during his fight with Thanos in the Infinity Gauntlet comic series; not to mention a callback to Tony Stark's vision in Age of Ultron.
 
 
True. However, "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Odin's own words during the first Thor movie.

The rules increase body based on increasing thickness (check under environment rules for walls).  I think rather than reducing Body to below one.  As one reduces thickness, the defense of the item should go down.  Personally, I just make an educated guess and just run with stuff pulled outta thin air using the environment values as guides.

Makes sense to me. I can tear through aluminum foil by accident, with force that wouldn't deal a single pip of damage as measured against a human target. The foil is effectively 0 BODY and 0 DEF. Faced with a half-inch slab of aluminum (the same material), I couldn't damage it at all--it's DEF exceeds the maximum damage that I can deal with my bare hands.

Fortunately for all of humanity that brief period when it was artistically in style to intentionally use non-sense words in poems was very brief.
 
I tried scouring the internet for hours trying to find some of those before I found out the author (and others in that time frame) intentionally made up their own words - which meant nothing - for these types of poems.
 
Classically I have gone with one of two variations for this type of weapon.
Flat OCV bonus between +4 and +6 only to hit the neck.
Flat OCV bonus of +8, only to hit the neck, only works on a critical hit, side effect:  Roll normally on hit location table if non-crit.

Yeah, it's so rough now with like 1/2 the world's poor being lifted out of poverty in the last several years.  Way ahead of UN expectations and stuff.
 
Modern medicine and amenities are a real nightmare.
 
Most people from anywhere in human history would have killed to enjoy the abject misery and horror that we have today.

Yeah, it's so rough now with like 1/2 the world's poor being lifted out of poverty in the last several years.  Way ahead of UN expectations and stuff.
 
Modern medicine and amenities are a real nightmare.
 
Most people from anywhere in human history would have killed to enjoy the abject misery and horror that we have today.

Yeah, it's so rough now with like 1/2 the world's poor being lifted out of poverty in the last several years.  Way ahead of UN expectations and stuff.
 
Modern medicine and amenities are a real nightmare.
 
Most people from anywhere in human history would have killed to enjoy the abject misery and horror that we have today.

Robocalls don't discriminate based on politics -- they annoy everyone equally.

If I was the PC in charge I'd go with the option to dismount and fight from the walls. I'd rather insist upon it.
 
But the real reason they charged off into the darkness to die was extra-diagetic. It made for a great shot and helped set the scene for a very desperate, very bleak battle.

I’m more inclined, after thinking on this a while, to agree with Archer and just accept that all Power Advantages actually affect damage in one way or another, and so should be included in the calculation of extra Damage Classes. 

One could illustrate this by looking at paper--a single sheet, a 500 sheet "ream", and a box of 10 reams.  You can punch a hole in a single sheet with a mere sharpened pencil(1 pip KA, at best).  That same pencil may break if you try the same stunt with a ream of paper.  Exertion of 5 STR would enable one to easily rip a sheet of paper in half.  Ripping a ream of paper in half would take near-superhuman strength.  A ream of paper might stop a .22 LR bullet from penetrating.  You'd need a high powered rifle bullet to go through a box of 10 reams.  
I do take the premise that thickness increases BODY, not DEF, though I'd suggest that a thickness below the standard guidelines might reduce DEF by a point (or two).  

I haven't even mentioned that it's an option to either one of my tables for fear that it will immediately result in them all selling OMCV to 0 and using the points to raise DMCV to 6 for "free".

It might avoid restating that for the simple fact they've already covered that you don't need an attack roll to break out of entangles. 
 
Mental Paralysis is a special type of entangle, but absent a specific rule indicating you DO need an attack roll why would you not continue with the previously established rule?
 
The basis for Entangles having a DCV of 3 comes from this section in entangle: 
"A character may target most types of Entangle
specifically, without damaging the character
inside it (unless the Entangle has the Entangle And
Character Both Take Damage Advantage, below),
at -3 OCV. Typically an Entangle targeted in this
manner has DCV 0,... "  -- Resulting in 3
 
Then a couple pages later under Mental Paralysis:
Another character can target a Mental Paralysis
without targeting its victim; the Mental Paralysis
has DMCV 3 for this purpose.
 
This doesn't lend itself to requiring a to-hit roll to break out of an Entangle - at all.
 
Also, a subset of a group inherits the properties of the set unless otherwise stated.  The most rational interpretation would be that Mental Paralysis (a subset of Entangle) doesn't require a to-hit roll to break out of because the parent set doesn't require a to-hit roll.
 
You're artificially adding something that just isn't there.