Crypt

Re: 6E p172 Object BODY table

Re: Normal rolling (6E) I have to reformulate my question: (Let's say i don't unify HTH,Blast and KA, that's another story) In your opinion, if i use the normal rolling method (face=Stun, 'pips'=Body) with the KA power do you think i should change the KA cost ?

Re: 6E p172 Object BODY table yes but... - will to live - organs On the table the will to live not only compensates the organs, it also makes the living being tougher than an unliving one. i tend to think that this two factors would result in an equality with unliving objects.

Re: About 6th edition One more book and it will be a cube

Re: About 6th edition oh you may still have all in one volume => http://cryptmaster.free.fr/H6pics/new/ Now it includes APG. Total = 460+320+ 200 = 980 pages (all bought PDFs, of course)

Re: APG Realistic Throwing because of air density, cross section area of the object, drag coefficient, throwing angle and planet's gravity. But let's ignore those complex factors (as you say it would make the APG rule even more unrealistic) Note that i don't really care about realism in RPGs.......until the word "realistic" appears in the rules !

I don't feel confortable with this table. For a given mass a living object has more BODY than an unliving object. Why ? I believe that a living "object" is more fragile because of its organs, and thus is more complex than an unliving one. What is your opinion ?

APG page 11: I don't understand that. From my point of view, following the kinetic energy formulae it should be "Each +10 STR doubles the maximum throwing distance for a given mass and each quadrupling of mass halves the throwing distance" e=1/2mv^2 becomes: STR=M X Distance^2 (we can get rid of the 1/2, it doesn't matter) Then STR/M = D^2 Expressed in logarithm (Notes: the log's base is 5th root of 2 but whatever it is the conclusion remains true.) STR-M = DX2 (STR-M)/2 = D We choose to ignore the X25 used for STR and Mass, it strictly doesn't matter here. For each result expressed as a nXy you may use 25 for n or any other number, nevermind. Let's say STR=15 (=nX8), Mass=5 (=nX2) (15-5)/2= 5 = nX2 If STR is doubled (+5)= (20-5)/2 = 7.5 = roughly nX2.8 If STR is quadrupled (+10) = (25-5)/2= 10 = nX4 so by quadrupling STR the distance has been doubled (nX2 became nX4 !) If the item's Mass is doubled (+5) (15-10)/2= 2.5 = roughly nX1.4 If the item's Mass is quadrupled (+10) (15-15)/2= 0 = nX1 Right ? So: Each quadrupling of STR doubles the maximum throwing distance for a given mass and each quadrupling of mass halves the throwing distance What mysterious non-energetic "realistic" formulae has been used in APG ?

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) The trouble with your example is that you mix everything: the rolling method + the defense + the intent. I think the reason we don't understand each other comes from the fact i dissociate each parts (rolling , dmg vs def.) The rolling method and the damage vs def may be evaluated. The intent is too subjective, for instance you deliberately choose to ignore the fact that sometimes we want to kill while having no killing attack. (and it's also possible the GM choose to use options like Impairing and Disabling which are based on BODY damage and impair/disable before killing.) So in the end the intent is definitely not a valid factor. Remember the goal is to unify HTH, Blast and KA so we must dissociate each parts. But if you want to keep them as three different powers then you are right. (about the rolling method note that i have edited my former post in order to take CON into account.)

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) i'm sorry but i still don't agree...(believe me, i tried) - The Rolling methods = (====> UKM limitation) N atks do 1.5 more STUN than K atks N atks do 1.17 less BODY than K atks But BODY costs twice as much AP as STUN and characters tend to have twice as much STUN as BODY. So the ratio is 1.5/(1.17X1.17)=1.09 = very close to 1 so the rolling methods don't favor one or another kind of attack when taking AP into account (and i believe we must consider that when dealing with HERO rules. AP are the final referee.) Score: 0/0 EDIT: BUT if we take CON into account (and i think we should) then the ratio is 1.5/1.17 = 1.3 Score: 1/0 => so the UKM limitation makes sense. - The defenses (6E2 p 104) = (====> Killing advantage.) Normal and Resistant DEFs work against N Stun and N Body Normal and Resistant DEFs work against K Stun Only Resistant DEFs work against K Body So K is clearly advantaged here, isn't it ? Score: 0/1 -The intent of the attack: Sometimes we don't want to kill even with a Killing attack. Sometimes we want to kill even with a Normal attack. Score: still 0/1 0/1 = K wins the match. OR 1/1 = no winner when taking CON into account.

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) yes, compared to 5E, the STUN part of Killing Atk is less important for the reason you said and because of the X1/2d. (But don't forget that BODY costs twice as much AP as STUN.) well, maybe i should give it a second tought...

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) Pulling a Punch halves Body damages, whatever the defenses. If you use a Killing attack but don't want to kill that seems to be a logical maneuver choice, doesn't it ?

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E)

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) So do i popularity brings inertia...

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) and the Stun Only limitation of Blast is worth -0 so i wonder why the Killing Attack Power should be seen as having an hidden inherent "Not Only Stun" limitation different from -0 which would explain the fact that it costs the same per DC as Blast despite the obvious fact that it's more effective because of its lethality versus non-resistant defenses.

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) I don't believe this is a good reason. A least it looks very poor to me. If you don't want to kill it's more logical to use a Stun Only modifier.

Re: Normal rolling (6E) Isn't it simpler to say that using the normal rolling method with the Killing Attack power is an advantage ? EDIT: In the other hand Body (1pt/+1) costs twice as much as Stun (1 pt/+2) thus the ratio is 1.5/(1.17X1.17)=1.09. From this point of view both methods seem to be equivalent. But by taking CON cost into account the ratio falls in favor of the normal rolling (1.3 times more effective than the killing one. Note that i only speak about the rolling methods, not the way defenses react to damage.)

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) But is it an actual trouble ? After all the consequences of AP caps in Frameworks occur with any power, even those not house-ruled. Why Blast, RKA and HKA should be favored by ignoring their inherent advantages ? But basing it on STR sounds logical and consistent to me, a lot more than changing the value of existing modifiers. The fact that the 'no manipulation' modifier is said "mandatory" is mainly a manner of speaking; it works exactly like any limitation. (it's hard enough to speak about house rules on a forum so i don't want to follow the heretic path which would inevitably lead to the removal of TK...)

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) Let's use the 6E where Range in meters=10XBase.

This thread is somewhat linked to the one about unifying three attack powers but here i prefer to focus on a precise and independant question : Let's say i want to use the rolling mecanism of normal damages (total=stun; 'pips'=body) even with Killing attacks. Knowing that, on average: normal method = 1.5 times more STUN than with the killing method. killing method = 1.17 times more BODY than with the normal method. What would you do in order to make sure the game keeps his balance ? In your opinion what would be the value of the advantage of using the 'normal' method instead of the 'killing' one ? +1/4 ? Note: I don't speak about the way Killing damages work against defenses. I only speak about the rolling method.

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) I think it would be interesting and useful to know the reason(s) why S.Long didn't choose to unify Blast, HTH and Killing attack. Anyone knows ?

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) well, the Attack Power base cost could as well be 4pt/1DC without the mandatory limitation. then A 'HTH power' = Attack 1DC/4pts (= 1DC/4 pts) A 'Blast power' = Attack 1DC/4pts , Ranged (+1/2) , Doesn't add to STR (-1/2) (= 1DC/4 pts) A Range 'Killing power' = Attack 1DC/4pts , Ranged (+1/2) , Killing (+1/2), UKM (-1/4), Doesn't add to STR (-1/2) (= 1DC/4.57 pts) A HTH 'Killing power' = Attack 1DC/4pts , Killing (+1/2) , UKM (-1/4) (= 1DC/4.8 pts) ..... well....i don't know, i tend to prefer the other version. As you said it might be a problem with frameworks. I need to think about it...

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) I try to use the official modifiers as far as possible. yes, it could be an alternate version. (i thought about this kind of thing but i didn't want to afraid anyone by speaking about removing TK )

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) Note that i've edited and added a limitation (UKM) about the difference between the two existing methods of rolling for damages and finally the building of a classical Killing Attack power costs the same as the official one.

Re: Merging Blast, HTH and Killing (6E) There is no change on the way defenses and damages work. This is the official killing damage, as usual, as it works on 6E2 page 104. (i've edited my post in order to avoid confusion) I only merge 3 powers into one, that's all.