Crypt

Re: 3D Star mapping software target plateform changed to 3.5

For instance, what about simply using the AM skills: Techniques skills: Creo Intellego Muto Perdo Rego Forms skills Animal Aquam Auram Corpus Herbam Ignem Imaginem Mentem Terram Vim form and technique would be combined (as in AM) in order to obtain a Roll-. For instance: Rego +1 cost: 5 + Ignem +2 cost 7 = ROLL = (9+CHAR/5)+1+2. (if CHAR= 15 ===> Roll=9+3+3= 15- ) For formulaïc spells (already known by the character) it would follow the standard "Required a skill roll" rule => -1 per 10 Active Points. For spontaneous spells => Active points = (success margin+1) * 5. If one tech or form is Untrained: replace (9+CHAR/5) by 6 thus: Rego untrained + Ignem +2 cost 7 = ROLL = 6+2 = 8- or replace the final ROLL- by 6 or simply forbid the roll, as you prefer. Because spontaneous casting can be very potent maybe techs and forms cost should be increased as if there were an advantage on them (?) +1, for a final 6/4 cost instead of 3/2 ? PS: i'm not sure VPP would be a so good alternative....

Re: 3D Star mapping software and we would call it Elite 4......... hmm, i'm not so much ambitious. David Braben was a genius. If you don't know what i'm talking about => http://www.tomatarium.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/glfrontier.html this is an open gl adaptation of one of the three best video games ever made (the other ones are Nethack and Dungeon Master)

Re: 3D Star mapping software I'm back on the project after several days of pause. I've fixed the moons selection problem and add a proportional zoom. The very next steps are: - to fix the moons orbit speeds. (they are too fast) - the double/triple stars problem. - elliptic orbits..... Next ones will be: - asteroids belts - sectors - surfaces lighting Then: - more useful datas (governments, security, etc....) - datas edition and data UI improvements. - tools like computing range / ship's engine, etc.... Then: Anything else that's funny: - tiny ships models - black holes, etc..... - etc.... Then : - generators.

Re: Weapon Speed and that's really nice

Re: Level of success ok, i don't know if we talk of the same thing but in this chart: http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/chart.jpg low roll is good for both hit and damage. Now i must confess something => i convert every roll 3D6 under X- to 3D6 + (X-11) vs 10. So my own version of the chart is reverse (high is good for EVERYTHING. No, i don't like D&D3, don't bother me with that ) I hope it add even more confusion

Re: Weapon Speed this site: http://www.huntersfriend.com/2007-Carbon-Arrows/arrow-selection-guide5.htm speaks about 3% velocity loss every 10 yards for an arrow.

Re: Level of success 'low is good for damage' => could you explain what is it about ? did my post (Mar 4th, '08 01:09 AM) bring an answer ?

Re: Weapon Speed a very simple way of solving the curve problem: 0-10% max range => actual path = distance X 1.1 11-20% max range => actual path = distance X 1.2 21-30% max range => actual path = distance X 1.3 31-40% max range => actual path = distance X 1.4 41%+ max range => actual path = distance X 1.5 So the arrow never follows a straight line. Now, the hardest part would be to convert bow strength to average speed. I think we can use StrMin as the bow strength. One information i have found are about modern bows: 55lbs 215fps=70m/s In another source, about medieval bows i've read that: Longbow 68 lbs. 133.7 fps Crossbow 740 lbs 138.7 fps There is a major difference between the modern version and the ancient one (this is a good illustration of the fact modern bow are much more powerfull than ancient ones for the same draw weight) and an even bigger difference between the ancient bow and the ancient crossbow. http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html Well, right now i don't know how we could convert StrMin to ancient/modern bow/crossbow lbs and speed. Any idea ? (i think i would use 50m/s all the time....) another interesting site: http://www.huntersfriend.com/2007-Carbon-Arrows/arrow-selection-guide5.htm Arrow weight also influences its speed but so let's put this factor aside.

Re: Weapon Speed ...for modern bows and crossbows. For ancient ones it seems that powerfull bows shot at no more than 60 or 70 m/s (and the speed tends to decrease as the arrow flies so you may average this value to 50 m/s if you prefer.) Well that makes the previous thumb arrow speed rule a bit more interesting 100m at 50m/s => 150 m ==> 3 s 50m at 50m/s => 75 m ==> 1.5 s 33m at 50m/s => 50 m ==> 1 s 25m at 50m/s => 37 m ==> 0.75 s or 0.5 s without "curved" path. etc....

Re: Weapon Speed PS: 2X1side (without the 75%.) would be even simpler. Thus 100m from target = 200 m path But for a perfect curve => 2 x Pi x radius / 2 ==> Pi x distance / 2. So instead of 2X distance you could use Pi/2==> 1.5X distance if you prefer (which is the same as 75% of 2X) The big problem is still: the 1.5 distance formulae is very artificial because arrows always follow a curve, whatever the distance, because of Earth's gravity so what is the beginning range for such a "distance increase" ? As a thumb rule, maybe 33% or 50% of maximum bow range ?

Re: Level of success which one ? (mine says that the harder to hit the target the more damage you should do to hit = the better you should roll. It's not worse than making a very good roll and being unlucky by doing a very poor damage roll.... )

Re: Weapon Speed sorry, i thought you asked for some ballistic informations. Nevermind, for info a normal arrow fly at no more than 100m/s An interesting site: http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm In order to apply a very simple ballistic approach you may for instance state that the arrow follow an almost equilateral triangular way (let's say 75% of 2X one side) instead of a curved one for far ranges. If, for instance you are at 100 m from a target, the arrow will travel 2X100X0,75m=150m before hitting the target. Thus knowing the arrow speed you know the time (and segments) required. (150m at 100m/s = 1.5s rounded to 1 or 2 segments, as you like it.) That's extremely simple but complex enough for a rpg. The big question is: at what beginning range should you apply such a formulae ? I don't know. It should depends on bow strength. IMHO, at less than 50 m, don't bother with arrows speed, they're too fast. Is that the kind of thing you asked about ?

Re: Weapon Speed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=216427 if you read french: http://jrbjrb.club.fr/table/intro.htm http://jrbjrb.club.fr/table/balistique%20Gailledreau.htm no.... try that: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~apostol/arrow/

Re: Weapon Speed Is guess this is a question of point of view but, from mine, weapon Length/Mass/Balance are, at least, 3 of the necessary factors to take into account if you want a realistic result when dealing with attack speed. This is only 3 factors but this can lead to extreme complexity if you don't combine them. (Space around the attacker and Attack mode (estoc or lever) are two other factors... estoc is always faster than lever but less powerfull, but the weapon sharpness/pointness may be more effective in estoc than in lever, etc, etc, etc.........so Weapon Penetration (==> area of contact, wich leads to strength by area of contact, which lead to damages) can also be a useful factor........) A simple friendly warning = you won't get a realistic speed rule if you don't takes those factors into account, so you'd better give up. That's just my opinion, of course (good luck ) I simply state that the shorter the faster AND the more distance between characters the slower their attacks BUT the bigger a weapon is the faster it comes to contact. ======> Thus, that's why i think that the Hero's HTH weapons length rule is also a HTP weapons speed rule even if the word "speed" is not written.

Re: A Blasphemous Idea for HERO 6th :eek: :eek:

Re: Weapon Speed IMHO weapon length rules simulates handness of small weapons so there is no need for weapons speed. (Fantasy Hero page 186 / Combat HandBook 52-53 : OCV Penalties: if the small weapon comes close enough (by scoring a hit) to the long weapon the long weapon get the malus. That's a very easy and nice way to simulate both HTH weapons speed and length in the same rule.) This rule is very effective because : if you want to get your full OCV value you will have to spend your CSL on OCV to counter the malus you get from weapons length: so you have less CSL for defense (DCV) . (this is the same thing as applying a malus to a Rolemaster character's OB ===> he has less points to use in parry.) PS: trying to make weapon speed and length rules is always a very tricky thing...(it can even be a nightmare if there is no SkillPoints/Time general conversion rule.) I've tried that several times for several RPGs. The only easy and elegant way to do it is the Combat HandBook 52-53 rule. It's so intuitive that i've applied it to Rolemaster even before having bought HERO. (I've also found a similar version in a french RPG: Pavillon Noir.)

Re: Level of success more OCV= more damage ==> by using damage increase with success margin. less OCV = more damage ==> by using CSL in DC instead of OCV or by choosing an OCV penalty in order to hit a fragile location. Those ways of increasing damage are not compatible because the second one automatically reduces the potential success margin.

Re: Level of success Here is the resulting chart: I've add a 18 column because this chart may also be used for any effect roll. (so the same probability repartition could be used whatever the number of dies of the effect roll. For instance you have to roll a 9d6 drain : you may roll 3d6 instead and check the chart => for instance you roll 7, the result is 43)

Re: Level of success Damages in HERO are already modified by success margin. Ok, this is very indirect, not automatic nor smooth but it's still true => Let's say you have 4 CSLs: At the extreme ranges you could use this CSL for +4 OCV or +2 DC (or any combinaison but let's keep this simple. I do not speak about DCV increase, this is another story.) Let's say that using all your CSL in OCV is the default action. If you use this CSL for +2 DC instead and hit => this means you've succeed even without using your CSL in OCV increase. You could have do that but you did not. So this is the same as saying : "because you've hit this is a 4 pt margin success and get a +2 DC increase." This 4 pt margin is purely potential. You've decided to take some risk by not using your full OCV potential. If you've chosen to use all your CSL in OCV and hit ==> there is not success margin. You've chosen to limit the risks. You see what i mean ? (for me it's a bit hard to explain in english.) Obviously it does not work as the Rolemaster's very smooth and automatic success margin task resolution... Because of this (less OCV = maybe more DC) and because of hit locations rules (less OCV = to hit a more "fragile" location = more damage) we cannot apply any more success margin damage rule nor "1/2 roll = max damage" rule... * The "easy rule" where you start at average damage and increase by 10% per 1 pt success margin is bad too. * because it would be more OCV= more damage AND less OCV = more damage at the same time. So i think the only way to link roll and damage would be to use the pure 3D6 roll without any modifier. For instance: 3 : max damage 4-7: 75 % damage 8-13: 50% damage 14-17: 25% damage or something like that. for instance => But this would mean that you cannot do little damage to a very hard to hit target. If you hit him, you do a big % of damage. You can do a little % of damage only to easy to hit targets. ===> for instance you make your attack, roll 3D6 and, without any modifier, get a 5 : if this is enough to hit (after applying normal modifiers, OCV, DCV, etc) you will do 83% of the maximum damage you can do (whatever your margin is !). (so you do not have to roll damage die. If your weapon does 2D normal damage thus it will do 10 stun and 3 body. ) ---------------------------- EDIT: of for something more regular: 17-16 (4.17% chance) = 25% dmg (4/18 + 5/18)/2 = 0.25 15-14 (11.57% chance) = 36% dmg (6/18 + 7/18)/2 = 0.36 13-12 (21.3% chance) = 47% dmg (8/18 + 9/18)/2 = 0.47 11-10 (25% chance) = 58% dmg (10/18 + 11/18)/2 = 0.58 9-8 (21.3% chance) = 69% dmg (12/18 + 13/18)/2 = 0.69 7-6 (11.57% chance) = 80% dmg (14/18 + 15/18)/2 = 0.80 5-4 (4.17% chance) = 91% dmg (16/18 + 17/18)/2 = 0.91 3 (0.46% chance)= 100 % dmg 18/18 = 1.00 That's probably the one i would use.

Re: Champions (Super)Hero Resources

Re: Level of success At first this seems very elegant (more than classic success margins)

Re: Untrained & Familiarity skills i knew what Mike W meant but : - if someone paid for high CHAR this is not fair to cap him at lower levels just because someone else could have spent its points somewhere else. - we could extrapolate the logic behind the so called unfairness of "1 Pt. for the FAM at 11- while others are paying 3 points for the same 11- with a "normal" score in the stat." ===> so why should someone paying the same pts as another one (3 pts both) could have a higher final roll ? Obviously the response is => because of higher char. Then: what's 2 pts difference compared to several increments of 5 pts and more used to buy high char's rolls ? What is unfair here ? Having paid 20 pts in order to get INT 30 (15- roll) and still getting a 8- familiarity in skills or having gained 20 pts for a miserable INT -10 (roll 7- and 9- base skill rolls *) and still getting 8- familiarities ? * artificially caped to 9- instead of a value inferior to 7- (page 43) because of the flat boring 8- familiarity rolls..... I've never liked this kind of pseudo rule...(it remembers me the "whatever your climbing result, any thief would do it better" 's D&D rule. That's the kind of reason i could re-sell any rule book...) If a result is supposed to be lower than another one then its numeric value is lower. That's the way is see "well crafted" rules. If you have CHAR X and want a better capacity you may buy skills levels. With skills you are better than yourself without skills. There is no reason to compare to someone else other than yourself. Skills levels are very cheap compared to CHARs. If MrLowINT want to be better than MrBRAIN then he has to paid the price. note: and i do not use the "11- for 2 pts" rule (KS and PS) Steve Long's Ultimate Skill page 19 too. So i wonder what this "spirit" is supposed to be. EDIT: Actually i will probably keep using the official rule. I simply needed to deeply think about this point and be persuaded that the official and easy way is not worse than anything else. I can change my mind very often

Re: Untrained & Familiarity skills IMHO, it would make no sense to cap MrUNIVERSE (CHAR 100) at a pathetic 6- for an untrained roll. That's too funny. Mr UNIVERSE: CHAR 100 standard rule ==> untrained 6- instead of 29- (===> loss=-23) Ultimate skill page 19 ==> 2+(Char/5) = 9+(Char/5)- a flat -7 = untrained 22- (===> loss=-7) CHA Roll-[(CHA Roll/11)X5] ===> untrained 16- (===> loss=-13) the X5 is only an echo of the 11- to 6- standard difference form a full average roll to a fixed 6- It could be another value, for instance 7 ==> CHA Roll-[(CHA Roll/11)X7] ===> untrained 11- (remember that Mr Universe's Char is 100 !!) (===> loss=-18) thus Mr EVERYMAN CHAR 10: CHA Roll-[(CHA Roll/11)X7] ===> untrained 4- (===> loss=-7) X7 to X3 results are => For instance Familiarity and Everyman skills could use the X4 column and Untrained skills could use the X6 column. (Note: i do not use KS and PS flat 11- for 2 points. Players must pay 3 pts for a regular roll.) At the opposite Ultimate Skill speaks about an option where untrained rolls could be modified by a fixed malus to Roll instead of using a fixed Roll ======> this is worse than the house rule i've speak about. 1 point ? What 1 point do you speak about ? "char 28-32 = normal roll 15- ===> untr. 8- ; fam. 11- " this cost 18 points (at minimum for a X1 Char)

Re: 3D Star mapping software you're right, i will use planet radius. this is animated => (orbits are still circular...)