Crypt

Re: 6E p172 Object BODY table

Does 6e still retain the rule that a character isn't dead until they reach the negative value of their BODY? If so' date=' there is your answer.[/quote']

 

That's exactly the opposite because living beings are even more tougher with this rule.

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

Looking at the two books You can easily see why they decided on two Volumes. With one coming in over 450 pages and the other 300 you can see that one volume would close to 800 pages. This would not only be a bit expensive but would cause all sorts of printing problems, although Id love to see it

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

I believe you on the maths, and that gives a better feel anyway - being able to throw someone into orbit would be funny the first time, but rapidly pall...

 

As for realism, in any event, throwing is not simply a matter of strength, it is (given sufficient STR to move the object at any speed you can move) about how much velocity you can impart, which is all about how fast you can move your arm. Unless very strong characters move MUCH faster than lower STR characters, they should not be able to throw light objects any farther: a tennis ball thrown by someone with 20 STR and someone with 60 STR, all other things being equal, should go about the same distance.

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:

"Each +5 STR quadruples the maximum throwing distance for a given mass, and each doubling of mass quarters the throwing distance"

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)

Look at it this way:

 

1) Killing Attacks do not require Resistant Defenses versus STUN damage in 6e.

 

2) Killing Attacks currently do less STUN and more BODY on average than Normal Attacks.

 

3) This means that Killing Attacks are only relevant in regards to BODY damage in 6e.

 

4) If Killing damage is only relevant to BODY damage then STUN Only negates the point.

 

5) If you make Killing damage into a Power Advantage, then the BODY and STUN averages become the same.

 

6) Finally, if they are the same, then you choose Killing Attacks solely for the purpose of Killing - it becomes too deadly in many cases for even Pulling a Punch - particularly against targets without or else too little Resistant Defenses to take the hit and just be knocked out.

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)

3) This means that Killing Attacks are only relevant in regards to BODY damage in 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.)

4) If Killing damage is only relevant to BODY damage then STUN Only negates the point.

 

5) If you make Killing damage into a Power Advantage, then the BODY and STUN averages become the same.

 

6) Finally, if they are the same, then you choose Killing Attacks solely for the purpose of Killing - it becomes too deadly in many cases for even Pulling a Punch - particularly against targets without or else too little Resistant Defenses to take the hit and just be knocked out.

well, maybe i should give it a second tought...

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

Pulling a Punch on Killing Attacks solves nothing against a target without Resistant Defenses.

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)

Yes' date=' that is precisely the point.Buying a Killing Advantage and then making it STUN Only is redundant, because 1) a power must use it's purchased advantages; 2) Killing Attacks no longer require resistant defenses versus STUN damage; and 3) this would thusly mean that a STUN Only Killing Attack is negative - what's the point of the Killing advantage then?[/quote']

 

Paradoxal, not redundant.

Use Pulling a Punch so there is no more trouble.

 

 

OTOH' date=' once again, sometimes you don't want to kill or maim your opponent or target.[/quote']

 

And sometimes you would like to bypass the armor of your foe with a normal attack so it's balanced and, again, it doesn't explain the fact that Killing is worth nothing.

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

but I'd eliminate the killing damage rolling mechanics entirely and make everything rolled like Normal Damage.

So do i

Considering the discussion that removing COM caused can you imagine what messing with the attack powers would do?

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)

For starters, Killing Damage is a +0 Advantage.

 

 

Why? Because 3 DC's of Normal Damage costs the same as 3 DC's of Killing Damage.

 

 

And why should Killing Damage not be worth more?

 

Because you don't always want to kill your opponent.

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)

A ranged blast works out at 7.5 points (active) and 4.3 points (real) under this suggestion. I'm not sure that works: it makes it largely pointless in MPs or VPPs but over effective if you ignore AP caps and just buy it 'straight' (you could get just 8 dice into a 60 point framework but 14 dice as a 'straight' 60 point power).

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 ?

I would not base it on the cost of STR (even though it is the same) because STR does other stuff than damage and I really do not like the idea of a 'mandatory modifier' - if you need anything mandatory then you need a separate power.

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)

Attack has Range = Active Points x 5.

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)

if you need anything mandatory then you need a separate power.

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)

Then if you reduce the cost of 'ranged' to +1/4 you're practically golden.

I try to use the official modifiers as far as possible.

Maybe 'damage' should cost 4 points per 1d6?

'Manipulation' could also be +1/4 (so you get normal STR). Then you get rid of TK and allow ranged damage with manipulation (6 points per 1d6/5 STR) which you can make indirect if you want to. Is this making sense?

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)

Also, does mean Resistant defenses only apply against the Body or against the whole thing including Stun? That would be a major change, and probably unbalancing.

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.