Hero System 5th Edition question

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

Page 299 of Hero System 5th Edition, Revised:

(-3/4) does no Stun

Can this be put on RKAs? Is it abusive to do so? After all, the purpose
of an RKA isn't to Stun people but to kill them. So I'm not sure.

Actually, I'm not even sure what that specific Limitation is intended
for. Is it for Killing Attacks? I can't imagine what else it might be for...

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

anything can be abusive or fair depending on the g.m., and that would
be great to make a chemical agent(add invisable power effect) thats
klling someone without symptoms.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:36:08 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>Page 299 of Hero System 5th Edition, Revised:
>
>(-3/4) does no Stun
>
>Can this be put on RKAs?

Yes.

>Is it abusive to do so?

No. If you roll the maximum stun multiplier on an RKA you can put
down an opponent who has no resistant defenses with amazing speed.
Often versus an opponent with resistant defences, you can shoot a
character with your RKA all day without killing him, but you can knock
him unconscious.

After all, the purpose
>of an RKA isn't to Stun people but to kill them. So I'm not sure.

The purpose of an RKA is to represent attacks that can't be relied
upon to incapacitate without killing. That doesn't mean
incapacitation isn't an option.

>
>Actually, I'm not even sure what that specific Limitation is intended
>for. Is it for Killing Attacks? I can't imagine what else it might be for...

Yes, it is primarily for Killing Attacks.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:36:08 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
><peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Page 299 of Hero System 5th Edition, Revised:
>>
>>(-3/4) does no Stun
>>
>>Can this be put on RKAs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>Is it abusive to do so?
>
> No. If you roll the maximum stun multiplier on an RKA you can put
> down an opponent who has no resistant defenses with amazing speed.
> Often versus an opponent with resistant defences, you can shoot a
> character with your RKA all day without killing him, but you can knock
> him unconscious.

Indeed. HERO system is largely set up to knock people out rather than
kill them. You *can* kill, but as I recall most people will go down
unconscious before you kill them.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

James Stafford wrote:
> anything can be abusive or fair depending on the g.m., and that would
> be great to make a chemical agent(add invisable power effect) thats
> klling someone without symptoms.

Laser Beam: RKA 4d6 (60 Active Points), (-1/4) Beam, (-1/4) No
Knockback, (-3/4) No Stun, special effect: Laser cauterizes wounds, so
that they do not bleed (if the GM is using any optional bleeding rules).

6 END per usage. Costs 27 Real Points.

To give one example.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:54:10 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>James Stafford wrote:
>> anything can be abusive or fair depending on the g.m., and that would
>> be great to make a chemical agent(add invisable power effect) thats
>> klling someone without symptoms.
>
>Laser Beam: RKA 4d6 (60 Active Points), (-1/4) Beam, (-1/4) No
>Knockback, (-3/4) No Stun, special effect: Laser cauterizes wounds, so
>that they do not bleed (if the GM is using any optional bleeding rules).
>
>6 END per usage. Costs 27 Real Points.
>
>To give one example.

Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
through people without inflicting pain.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42e7ce03.5736878@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:54:10 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>James Stafford wrote:
>>> anything can be abusive or fair depending on the g.m., and that would
>>> be great to make a chemical agent(add invisable power effect) thats
>>> klling someone without symptoms.
>>
>>Laser Beam: RKA 4d6 (60 Active Points), (-1/4) Beam, (-1/4) No
>>Knockback, (-3/4) No Stun, special effect: Laser cauterizes wounds, so
>>that they do not bleed (if the GM is using any optional bleeding rules).
>>
>>6 END per usage. Costs 27 Real Points.
>>
>>To give one example.
>
> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
> through people without inflicting pain.

I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

Doug Hosford <doughosford@cox.net> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:42e7ce03.5736878@news.telusplanet.net...

>> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
>> through people without inflicting pain.

>I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain

To be fair, though, that'd be a 1/10th of a pip RKA, not a
4 or 5d6. I'm not sure the no pain thing would scale up well.

On the other hand, I know that burn victims often don't feel
pain from their wounds because the nerves are destroyed. They'd
feel the initial pain, but you can work around that with a
sufficiently pseudo-scientific special effect.

And for a power simulating a "regular" laser, there's no reason
it couldn't cause pain, just not enough to take away Stun points.
You'd still feel it burning into you, it just wouldn't be enough
to impair you or knock you out. Kind of like a punch that doesn't
do more damage than your PD can handle would still be felt, and
might even hurt a little bit. If we're talking about a power with
invisible power effects or something, that obviously wouldn't
work. In general, though, I could handle it no problem.

Pete
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

"Doug Hosford" <doughosford@cox.net> wrote in news:ld8Ge.22119
$HV1.18878@fed1read07:

>> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
>> through people without inflicting pain.
>
> I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain
>
>

Oh,well, of course then, laser eye sugary(sic) is the same as a
laser burning through a person.

--
Marc
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are."--Benjamin Franklin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:03:16 -0700, "Doug Hosford"
<doughosford@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:42e7ce03.5736878@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:54:10 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
>> <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>James Stafford wrote:
>>>> anything can be abusive or fair depending on the g.m., and that would
>>>> be great to make a chemical agent(add invisable power effect) thats
>>>> klling someone without symptoms.
>>>
>>>Laser Beam: RKA 4d6 (60 Active Points), (-1/4) Beam, (-1/4) No
>>>Knockback, (-3/4) No Stun, special effect: Laser cauterizes wounds, so
>>>that they do not bleed (if the GM is using any optional bleeding rules).
>>>
>>>6 END per usage. Costs 27 Real Points.
>>>
>>>To give one example.
>>
>> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
>> through people without inflicting pain.
>
>I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain

That's because you have no nerve endings in your cornea.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

Peter Meilinger <mellnger@bu.edu> wrote:
> Doug Hosford <doughosford@cox.net> wrote:
>>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>>news:42e7ce03.5736878@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>>> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
>>> through people without inflicting pain.
>
>>I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain
>
> To be fair, though, that'd be a 1/10th of a pip RKA, not a
> 4 or 5d6. I'm not sure the no pain thing would scale up well.
>
> On the other hand, I know that burn victims often don't feel
> pain from their wounds because the nerves are destroyed. They'd
> feel the initial pain, but you can work around that with a
> sufficiently pseudo-scientific special effect.

Endorphins. Shock.

You can be pretty heinously injured 'without feeling it'... until you
find out about it.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:03:16 -0700, "Doug Hosford"
><doughosford@cox.net> wrote:
>>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>>news:42e7ce03.5736878@news.telusplanet.net...
>>>
>>> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
>>> through people without inflicting pain.
>>
>>I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain
>
> That's because you have no nerve endings in your cornea.

No pain receptors, surely. If you didn't have any nerve endings in your
cornea it wouldn't *work*.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

No nerve endings or nerves in the cornea, which is the transparent
covering on the outside of the lens. As you go back, you then reach the
lens of the eye, then the eyeball, then the blood vessels that service the
retina, and finally the nerves that detect light. Notice the retina is
behind something partly opaque, cutting its efficiency markedly, and, no,
this was not necessary, because you can find living creatures with the
retinal cells in front of their blood vessels. The order in man is a good
example of incompetent design theory.

Coming back on topic, noting the issues 'does no stun', consider the
advantage 'takes no stun', perhaps with stun converting to body.

The idea dismayed the GM.

The players agreed it was reasonable, when I noted the genre example, the
number of mummies in 30s films, which take enormous body damage without
slowing down.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Keith Davies wrote:

> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:03:16 -0700, "Doug Hosford"
> ><doughosford@cox.net> wrote:
> >>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> >>news:42e7ce03.5736878@news.telusplanet.net...
> >>>
> >>> Well, it's pretty unbelievable that a laser could burn it's way
> >>> through people without inflicting pain.
> >>
> >>I've had laser sugary to my eyes with no pain
> >
> > That's because you have no nerve endings in your cornea.
>
> No pain receptors, surely. If you didn't have any nerve endings in your
> cornea it wouldn't *work*.
>
>
> Keith
> --
> Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
> keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
> keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
> http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0507292015360.7802-100000@ccc1.wpi.edu>,
"George D. Phillies" <phillies@WPI.EDU> wrote:

> Coming back on topic, noting the issues 'does no stun', consider the
> advantage 'takes no stun', perhaps with stun converting to body.
>
> The idea dismayed the GM.
>
> The players agreed it was reasonable, when I noted the genre example, the
> number of mummies in 30s films, which take enormous body damage without
> slowing down.

"Takes no STUN" is one of the automaton powers.

--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
indianajoe3@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

George D. Phillies <phillies@WPI.EDU> wrote:
> No nerve endings or nerves in the cornea, which is the transparent
> covering on the outside of the lens. As you go back, you then reach the
> lens of the eye, then the eyeball, then the blood vessels that service the
> retina, and finally the nerves that detect light. Notice the retina is
> behind something partly opaque, cutting its efficiency markedly, and, no,
> this was not necessary, because you can find living creatures with the
> retinal cells in front of their blood vessels. The order in man is a good
> example of incompetent design theory.

Retina! I was thinking of the wrong end of the eyeball.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 

lewis

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2003
96
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

It might be fair, but I dont personally think a cauterizing laser would
fail to stun. I would think a killing attack that didnt cause stun
would be a magical attack, like a body drain. You know you're dying but
it doesnt hurt. Heck it might even require a kiss. The kiss feels no
better or worse than a normal kiss but the body is absorbed. Anyway,
seems like it'd be magical or fantastical.

Well, also keep in mind that one of the big dangers on a killing attack
is the stun. Seriously. One thing I *dont* like about Hero is that
you've got to be off the chart on resistant defense to ignore bullets
because of the darned stun multiplier. I have played a character with
20 PD, all resistant. Pretty much most small arms fire has no chance to
do body to him, but he doesnt dare let bullets hit him because any
average roll on a 3d6+1 Killing Attack, with a 6 (or 5x) on the stun
multiplier puts him down in one shot.

So, I'd say, a killing attack that doesn't do Stun is a LOT less
dangerous than one that does, assuming resistant defense is typical or
common in your campaign. Therefore, the limitation seems valid to me
(just my initial impression).

Lewis
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

>>>>> On 7 Aug 2005 23:38:05 -0700, lewis@lwb.org said:

l> One thing I *dont* like about Hero is that you've got to be
l> off the chart on resistant defense to ignore bullets because
l> of the darned stun multiplier. I have played a character with
l> 20 PD, all resistant. Pretty much most small arms fire has no
l> chance to do body to him, but he doesnt dare let bullets hit
l> him because any average roll on a 3d6+1 Killing Attack, with a
l> 6 (or 5x) on the stun multiplier puts him down in one shot.

I always liked this aspect of Hero. 3d6+1 isn't just any bullet,
that's a .50BMG or 20mm round. Max stun multiplier indicates a
solid hit to the head or vitals. Taking no BODY means that your
armor isn't penetrated, and that's fine, but taking no STUN would
mean that all the force of the projectile dissipated without
inconveniencing you in any way whatsoever. I think that's too
much to expect for 20 PD. Since you're presumably not a brick,
being CON stunned by such a hit strikes me as perfectly
reasonable. Being truly knocked out would be a little iffy, but
the solution there may be to buy more STUN.

--
Postings from this account are personal and opinions expressed are my own.
Any sufficiently advanced weapon is indistinguishable from a practical joke.
"It's like vigilante justice without the justice." -- Tisha O'Malley
"People change, and smile: but the agony abides."-T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages
 

lewis

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2003
96
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

I understand how it works, and so therefore I dont expect 20 resistant
PD to be enough. I guess I didnt make myself clear. What I'm saying is
that it is a staple of comic books to have quite a few Supers who
literally ignore 20mm rounds, and even tank shells, but are a danger to
one another. Because of the way the Hero system works, you'd have to
have 200 resistant defense or more to achieve that. Probably more. The
system is totally workable as-is but the default campaign is just
perhaps quite a bit less epic than some of the comic books standard
heroes (in some comic book universes).

I've played Hero for years and love it and I'm comfortable with the
power levels, but its just a fact that heroes that ignore heavy gunfire
are common in comic books, but to have that kind of defense in Hero,
assuming other heroes are balanced to have offense to not be negated by
that same defense, that the power level of the heroes is way off the
scale. Now, there are plenty of world-threat level heroes that ignore
gunfire in comics, but plenty non-global scale ones that dont ... these
inbetween heroes, who ignore gunfire but cannot destroy Europe for
breakfast, that are hardest to simulate with Hero.

But no big deal.

I'm thinking of adding a mechanic to the next game I run where heroes
are rated by "Power Class" a la DCU's metahuman index or Powers
universe scale, 1-10 or whatever. Heroes in a given class are built on
50 points per class rating, plus disads. So, a "standard" Class 5 hero
has 250 points for free, a 50 point active power limit, and can get up
to 100 more points from disadvantages and personal limits. For every 50
experience points earned, your class rating goes up by 1, and the
active point limit goes up by 10 points. If I can find a balanced way
to do it, each Power Class over 5 will start having advangates .... for
example at Power Class 7, maybe Killing Attacks can never do more than
average stun. It just makes the heroes more hardy. However, I'd
probably say that hero powers would be special and immune to the rule,
so a killing attack from a superpower wouldnt be limited, so the titans
are relatively the same, but can be safe from "normal" stuff without
having to be planet-splitters.

Of course then you get into ... what constitutes a superpower. I'd
probably label powers as Mutant, Magic, WeirdTech, or WeirdScience,
maybe Chi, and anything of that classification is immune to the defense
benefits of being an Epic or high Power Rating Super.

But its just an idea that may or may not work and is in the primitive
stage.

Lewis
 

lewis

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2003
96
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

"but plenty non-global scale ones that dont"

I meant "but plenty non-global scale heroes that also bounce bullets".

Lewis
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

Jason Larke <jlarke@umich.edu> wrote in
news:ez9wtmwjm7o.fsf@gravitar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu:

>>>>>> On 7 Aug 2005 23:38:05 -0700, lewis@lwb.org said:
>
> l> One thing I *dont* like about Hero is that you've got to be
> l> off the chart on resistant defense to ignore bullets because
> l> of the darned stun multiplier. I have played a character with
> l> 20 PD, all resistant. Pretty much most small arms fire has no
> l> chance to do body to him, but he doesnt dare let bullets hit
> l> him because any average roll on a 3d6+1 Killing Attack, with a
> l> 6 (or 5x) on the stun multiplier puts him down in one shot.
>
> I always liked this aspect of Hero. 3d6+1 isn't just any bullet,
> that's a .50BMG or 20mm round. Max stun multiplier indicates a
> solid hit to the head or vitals. Taking no BODY means that your
> armor isn't penetrated, and that's fine, but taking no STUN would
> mean that all the force of the projectile dissipated without
> inconveniencing you in any way whatsoever. I think that's too
> much to expect for 20 PD. Since you're presumably not a brick,
> being CON stunned by such a hit strikes me as perfectly
> reasonable. Being truly knocked out would be a little iffy, but
> the solution there may be to buy more STUN.
>
Plus, expecting to have a character that can ignore all attacks is just not
getting the point.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
> Deric Page wrote:
> > On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:45:05 GMT, thunder crashed as Deric Page
> > <dericdotpage@usadotne.t> dramatically intoned:
> >>For a book-legal way of getting around this, start looking at Damage Reduction,
> >>Only vs. Real Weapons (-1/4). With 20 CON, 20 DEF and 50% Dmg Red, an attack
> >>would have to do 61 STUN for a CON Stun (which would be about .44 caliber or
> >>higher to even have a chance). At 75% Dmg Red, the attack would have to do 101
> >>STUN, at which point you're looking at Anti-Tank weapons.
> >
> > Bah, that should have been "Only vs. Real Weapons (-1)".
>
> Isn't that excessive? Do you expect the (-1) to get past the average
> Hero GM?
>
> In what I do to try to learn (some aspects of) Hero System, I always
> assume that my hypothetical character is going to be played in a
> campaign run by a reasonable GM. One who isn't too restrictive, in terms
> of player creativity, but who will reject abusive designs and
> suggestions. (Not saying yours is abusive, though. I'm far too new to
> Hero System to be able to say that authoratively. It just seems
> questionable to me).
>
It really depends on how often you expect to run into attacks with the
'Real Weapon' limitation. In a street-level game (Batman, Daredevil,
Punisher, etc), where you freaquently go up against thugs with guns it
would only be worth about -1/4. In a 'Save the World' game (Avengers,
JLA, etc) were mundane weapons aren't supposed to be a threat nor
encountered very often, -1 doesn't seem unreasonable. Most GMs I've
met would simply ask you to adjust the Limitation value accordingly.

Since Lewis had mentioned "world-threat level heroes" in an ealier
message, I based my reply around a JLA/Avengers type campaign.

BTW, another option given in the Dark Champions book (thus an official
optional rule; if that matters to you) is to take the Stun done from
Killing Attacks, divide it in half and apply each half to the hero's
defenses separately. So, if you've got 20 DEF and get hit by a a
Killing Attack that does 11 BODY and 33 STUN: Divide the 33 into 16 &
17 and take no STUN. If you'd only had 10 DEF, you'd end up taking 1
BODY and (6+7) 13 STUN.

Deric
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

On 8 Aug 2005 16:15:18 -0700, thunder crashed as lewis@lwb.org dramatically
intoned:

>I understand how it works, and so therefore I dont expect 20 resistant
>PD to be enough. I guess I didnt make myself clear. What I'm saying is
>that it is a staple of comic books to have quite a few Supers who
>literally ignore 20mm rounds, and even tank shells, but are a danger to
>one another. Because of the way the Hero system works, you'd have to
>have 200 resistant defense or more to achieve that. Probably more. The
>system is totally workable as-is but the default campaign is just
>perhaps quite a bit less epic than some of the comic books standard
>heroes (in some comic book universes).
>
>I've played Hero for years and love it and I'm comfortable with the
>power levels, but its just a fact that heroes that ignore heavy gunfire
>are common in comic books, but to have that kind of defense in Hero,
>assuming other heroes are balanced to have offense to not be negated by
>that same defense, that the power level of the heroes is way off the
>scale. Now, there are plenty of world-threat level heroes that ignore
>gunfire in comics, but plenty non-global scale ones that dont ... these
>inbetween heroes, who ignore gunfire but cannot destroy Europe for
>breakfast, that are hardest to simulate with Hero.
>
Some folks have gotten around this with a house rule: If an attack has the Real
Weapon (-1/4) Limitation, any attack that doesn't get BODY past the target's
defenses will do no STUN. If the target's defenses has the Real Armor (-1/4)
limitation, calculate STUN as normal.

For a book-legal way of getting around this, start looking at Damage Reduction,
Only vs. Real Weapons (-1/4). With 20 CON, 20 DEF and 50% Dmg Red, an attack
would have to do 61 STUN for a CON Stun (which would be about .44 caliber or
higher to even have a chance). At 75% Dmg Red, the attack would have to do 101
STUN, at which point you're looking at Anti-Tank weapons.

Just some thoughts.

Deric Page
--
"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion; you must
set yourself on fire." -- Anonymous
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:45:05 GMT, thunder crashed as Deric Page
<dericdotpage@usadotne.t> dramatically intoned:

>For a book-legal way of getting around this, start looking at Damage Reduction,
>Only vs. Real Weapons (-1/4). With 20 CON, 20 DEF and 50% Dmg Red, an attack
>would have to do 61 STUN for a CON Stun (which would be about .44 caliber or
>higher to even have a chance). At 75% Dmg Red, the attack would have to do 101
>STUN, at which point you're looking at Anti-Tank weapons.
>
Bah, that should have been "Only vs. Real Weapons (-1)".

Deric Page
--
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it." -- Larry Niven
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

Deric Page wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:45:05 GMT, thunder crashed as Deric Page
> <dericdotpage@usadotne.t> dramatically intoned:
>>For a book-legal way of getting around this, start looking at Damage Reduction,
>>Only vs. Real Weapons (-1/4). With 20 CON, 20 DEF and 50% Dmg Red, an attack
>>would have to do 61 STUN for a CON Stun (which would be about .44 caliber or
>>higher to even have a chance). At 75% Dmg Red, the attack would have to do 101
>>STUN, at which point you're looking at Anti-Tank weapons.
>
> Bah, that should have been "Only vs. Real Weapons (-1)".

Isn't that excessive? Do you expect the (-1) to get past the average
Hero GM?

In what I do to try to learn (some aspects of) Hero System, I always
assume that my hypothetical character is going to be played in a
campaign run by a reasonable GM. One who isn't too restrictive, in terms
of player creativity, but who will reject abusive designs and
suggestions. (Not saying yours is abusive, though. I'm far too new to
Hero System to be able to say that authoratively. It just seems
questionable to me).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.super-heroes (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in
news:42f8dc83$0$67259$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk:

>
> Deric Page wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:45:05 GMT, thunder crashed as Deric Page
>> <dericdotpage@usadotne.t> dramatically intoned:
>>>For a book-legal way of getting around this, start looking at Damage
>>>Reduction, Only vs. Real Weapons (-1/4). With 20 CON, 20 DEF and 50%
>>>Dmg Red, an attack would have to do 61 STUN for a CON Stun (which
>>>would be about .44 caliber or higher to even have a chance). At 75%
>>>Dmg Red, the attack would have to do 101 STUN, at which point you're
>>>looking at Anti-Tank weapons.
>>
>> Bah, that should have been "Only vs. Real Weapons (-1)".
>
> Isn't that excessive? Do you expect the (-1) to get past the average
> Hero GM?

It depends on how often the heros are attacked with "real weapons," and how
effective they generally are.

If, for instance, the heros typically do fight agents - normals using "real
weapons" - and generally have a fight on their hands (because, despite them
being "normals", there are a lot of them, and defenses are generally not
too high), then such a limitation would be worth very little. If, on the
other hand, the heros typically do _not_ run in to very many agents, or
"real weapons," then the limitation would be worth a lot more, because it
would rarely come in to play.

It all depends on the nature of the setting.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available