Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Than you for your well-thought-out reply.

 

Also' date=' the use of BODY in the bonus dice calculations is due to the fact that, to a large extent, BODY is an abstraction for mass for inanimate objects. .... But think of a cinderblock vs a fist sized piece of concrete. They have the same DEF, but the cinderblock will cause more damage when you hit someone over the head with it, due to its higher mass, represented by higher BOD.[/quote']

Yes, but that's already taken into consideration by the STR of the wielder. I can heave a fist-sized piece of concrete harder than I could a cinder block. If I simply let them both fall on your head, the cinder block will obviously do more damage, paralleled by the fact that it took more force (STR) to lift it over your head. However, if I use my full STR to swing the cinder block it will have the same momentum as the fist-sized rock swung with my full STR. The more STR used to lift the object, the less is left over to increase the force of the swing. Remember the recent scandal over corked baseball bats? A lighter weight bat can be swung faster. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. The lower the mass (BODY) the higher the velocity you can achieve with the same STR. A bullet from a gun has very little mass (probably <1 BODY), but it can kill because of its high velocity. If the bullet was ten times heavier, the same force provided by the exploding gunpowder would only give it one tenth of the velocity.

 

Agreed, but I think the BOD/mass of an object can lead to “bonus damage†as well, you don’t. Instead, you use BOD/mass as a limiting factor, in point 9.

That's fine. I'm just brainstorming here. The BODY (mass) is obviously relevent in some way (except in the case of delicate items as you mentioned).

 

And I think your system accelerates damage too quickly. Your 30 STR guy just doubled his damage output by picking up a girder. Too effective, IMHO.

I agree, it does. And yes, it's a problem in play.

 

Glass is DEF 1, Bone is DEF 2. Items made from either should generate bonus damage, though they will probably break themselves in the process. “Tough but flexible†is more a property of the specific object material, not the DEF itself. Again, GM’s judgment may be needed, particularly at the low end of the DEF scale.

Good point. So I guess DEF doesn't reflect hardness as much as I had stated. Hmmm... Maybe there should be a "hardness rating" for objects in addition to its DEF. More work and more complication, I know. But this is an area of HERO that I have long felt needs work. As I mentioned on another thread.

 

An interesting system. Whether or not its more “realistic†than the one Hugh and I have been batting around is a debatable point.

Yes, and I welcome the debate. At the end of it, I hope to have as realistic a system as possible.

But I do think yours is less playable. Its more cumbersome (not that ours isn’t somewhat cumbersome) and you need to the exact STR needed to lift something. As I mentioned in my last post, needing to know more or less exactly what something weighs can be problematic to determine quickly.

Not really. You just need to know how much total STR the weilder is using, as long as it's at least as much as it would take to pick up the object. The Strength Chart in FREd has plenty of examples to compare, and TUB has even more.

 

Well, as I mentioned, I find the increased realism debatable. And I don’t think it’s balanced, as it can lead to vastly higher damage totals particularly in the Superheroic genre. And that’s the genre such rules will find the most play. My ideal is balance/playability, with realism a secondary goal. Particularly when realism is so arguable.

Believe it or not, balance/playability is also my primary goal. But to acheive it, I want to start with maximum realism, and then adjust it for balance and simplify for playability as necessary. That way, when you want "absolute" realism, you've got it. And when you only want as much realism as practical, you know where to start from. In order to write good science fiction, first learn as much as possible about science fact.

 

All good guidelines for GM judgment calls, except perhaps 11c. I don’t find that one particularly in genre.

I guess not, but I wasn't really talking about specific genres. If you get hit by a train going 60 mph or if you're going 60 mph and hit an immobile barrier, it's going to hurt. If you're well-armored, your body is going to hit against the inside of the armor, having instantly accelerated from 0-60 mph, (or decelerated from 60-0). Even if your armor is well-padded or is an inherent part of your skin, your delicate internal organs are going to be damaged by the sudden jolt.

 

Now granted, in a comic-book superhero genre, I would allow Ironman, Superman, the Thing, etc. to pretty much bounce the damage from being hit by a train. But again, I want to start with realism and then suspend whatever parts of it are not in genre.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Heh. Yeah; if you hit someone with an OAF Club bought as a Hand Attack you do +xd6 damage, but if you pick up a tree and hit them with it the damage is calculated differently. An odd quirk.

 

 

I just treat objects like hand attacks. Large objects as AoE Hand Attacks.

 

 

EDIT: Little more time to post now;

 

I allow objects used in this manner to add a number of d6 equal to their DEF up to double the STR of the weilder, and apply 1/2 the BODY damage inflicted to the target to the object if the target is knocked back, and all of the BODY damage if the target is not knocked back.

 

Dont have my book handy, so Ill deal in generalities. If Bricabrac (BB) has 50 STR and swings a 5 DEF 10 BODY object at PunchingBag (PB), he'd do 15d6 damage just as if he had a +5d6 Hand Attack. Lets say BB does 15 BODY with the attack. If PunchingBag is knocked back 8 BODY is applied to the object -- it doesnt break, but it cant take much more of that kind of damage. If PB is not knocked back all 15 BODY is applied, effectively destroying the object.

 

 

Thats a cooked up example of course; most objects have closer values for DEF and BODY and are pretty likely to break when used by a superstrong character. A Bat in the hands of a normal is worthwhile, but is going to snap after one hit by a superstrong brick -- they'd be better off using a lightpole and even those will break pretty often.

[JamesG]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Thank you for your well-thought-out reply.

 

Whew, after posting, I wondered if I came across too snippy, which wasn’t my intent. Even though we tend to disagree here, I do enjoy the debate.

 

Yes, but that's already taken into consideration by the STR of the wielder. I can heave a fist-sized piece of concrete harder than I could a cinder block. If I simply let them both fall on your head, the cinder block will obviously do more damage, paralleled by the fact that it took more force (STR) to lift it over your head. However, if I use my full STR to swing the cinder block it will have the same momentum as the fist-sized rock swung with my full STR. The more STR used to lift the object, the less is left over to increase the force of the swing. Remember the recent scandal over corked baseball bats? A lighter weight bat can be swung faster. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. The lower the mass (BODY) the higher the velocity you can achieve with the same STR. A bullet from a gun has very little mass (probably <1 BODY), but it can kill because of its high velocity. If the bullet was ten times heavier, the same force provided by the exploding gunpowder would only give it one tenth of the velocity.

 

Unless I misunderstood something about your system, a STR 10 person wielding a DEF 5, BOD 2 object will do the same damage as he would wielding a bigger, heavier object of the same material (say DEF and BOD both 5). I do not think that passes the real world reality test. (This assumes that the STR 10 person can easily lift both objects. But that’s a safe assumption, since a DEF 5, BOD 6 large bell can be lifted by STR 2.)

 

While it is true that you can swing the lighter object faster, is it faster enough to equal the additional damage imparted by greater mass? In HERO terms, the answer seems to be No. Look at the clubs weapon table. All the clubs have the same DEF. The larger clubs have more BOD and weigh more. And the larger clubs do more damage, despite the fact that one can swing the smaller clubs faster. So in HERO terms, it seems that greater mass has more effect on increasing damage potential than swinging faster.

 

Taking you corked baseball bat example, I’ve read the issue with corked bats is that being lighter, they allow the hitter to get around quicker on the ball. Which means they are more likely to get a solid hit, but not that they are really going to hit the ball any further than the same quality hit with a normal bat. So in game terms, the lighter bat increases CV, but not damage.

 

And the bullet does not do its damage by “bashing†into its target, like the swung objects of opportunity do. It does its damage by piercing the flesh and doing internal damage (hence it’s a killing attack). True, rubber bullets do their damage by “bashing†despite their small mass. But they have greater velocity than “muscle power†can generate.

 

Good point. So I guess DEF doesn't reflect hardness as much as I had stated. Hmmm... Maybe there should be a "hardness rating" for objects in addition to its DEF. More work and more complication, I know. But this is an area of HERO that I have long felt needs work. As I mentioned on another thread.

 

The Ultimate Object anyone? Seriously, wasn’t there a HERO Guide to Everyday Objects eBook planned at one time? Scrapped I guess when they decided not to do more eBooks. In any case, I agree that this is an area of HERO that could use more work.

 

Not really. You just need to know how much total STR the wielder is using, as long as it's at least as much as it would take to pick up the object. The Strength Chart in FREd has plenty of examples to compare, and TUB has even more.

 

True, if the wielder wants to do maximum damage. But what if he wants to minimize END usage by just using enough STR to pick up the object? Then you need to know exactly how much STR he needs to pick up the object. While the tables in FRED and TUB have plenty of examples, it still could be difficult to determine the exact STR to lift something if it is not one of the given examples. My/Hugh’s system only requires you know if can be lifted with casual STR, which is much easier to determine quickly.

 

Believe it or not, balance/playability is also my primary goal. But to acheive it, I want to start with maximum realism, and then adjust it for balance and simplify for playability as necessary. That way, when you want "absolute" realism, you've got it. And when you only want as much realism as practical, you know where to start from. In order to write good science fiction, first learn as much as possible about science fact.

 

Fair enough. But I don’t find this system more realistic, as I mentioned earlier in this post, I think it fails a simple reality check. And I also find it less balanced. It’s probably close in playability to the system I favor.

 

Also, I just thought of another thing I find somewhat objectionable about your system. In yours, the damage done by objects is equally dependent of the objects DEF as it is on the wielder’s STR. In fact, it is more dependent on DEF, since the amount of STR the character can use is limited by the object’s BOD. In my system, the damage is primarily determined by the wielder’s STR, with a small bonus based on DEF/BOD, and limited by the total DEF/BOD of the object. In other words, my system is more wielder-centric, while yours in more object-centric. IMHO anyway.

 

I guess not, but I wasn't really talking about specific genres. If you get hit by a train going 60 mph or if you're going 60 mph and hit an immobile barrier, it's going to hurt. If you're well-armored, your body is going to hit against the inside of the armor, having instantly accelerated from 0-60 mph, (or decelerated from 60-0). Even if your armor is well-padded or is an inherent part of your skin, your delicate internal organs are going to be damaged by the sudden jolt.

 

Now granted, in a comic-book superhero genre, I would allow Ironman, Superman, the Thing, etc. to pretty much bounce the damage from being hit by a train. But again, I want to start with realism and then suspend whatever parts of it are not in genre.

 

I agree with your points here. In fact, this is one of the main reasons I dislike the HERO System falling damage rules. Not only is the damage too little, things like Armor give too much protection against it. There was an old DH article redefining Falling Damage as partly an NND does BODY attack. Unfortunately, this article, and all others earlier than mid-1999, were lost at some point during the Cybergames era.

[JamesG]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

I allow objects used in this manner to add a number of d6 equal to their DEF up to double the STR of the weilder, and apply 1/2 the BODY damage inflicted to the target to the object if the target is knocked back, and all of the BODY damage if the target is not knocked back.

 

Certainly very quick, easy, and playable. But it allows strong characters to greatly increase their damage output with no apparent drawbacks (unless there are other aspects you left out for brevity). It seems to me that using it as written would make Bricks too effective.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Certainly very quick' date=' easy, and playable. But it allows strong characters to greatly increase their damage output with no apparent drawbacks (unless there are other aspects you left out for brevity). It seems to me that using it as written would make Bricks too effective.[/quote']

Not in practice. Few Items have enough DEF to be truly effective in the hands of a superstrong character.

 

On the plus side, the damage from objects used in this fashion is basically "Cream" since the character's STR damage likely exceeds or at least cuts into an opponents defenses, so the item damage is extra above that. Even a few d6 additional damage can have a huge effect.

 

On the downside there is excessive property and collateral damage to contend with and the negative image involved with smashing up cars, dumpsters, lightpoles, and so forth. And heaven help the hero that chucks a mailbox full of mail -- thats a felony

 

As far as it making "bricks" to powerful, not really. All characters get the same bonus from using objects as weapons. The only difference is that the "brick" *probably paid for more strength (* not all bricks are necessarily superstrong). So they get the same "add" from a similar object as a weaker character, the only difference being that they are able to use heavier objects than a weaker character; a privelege for which they paid for in the form of their higher strength.

 

Also, since its based on DEF, not DEF+BODY, a School Bus and a metal pole will offer about the same bonus -- its the material strength, not the size or mass thats being factored in. The main difference is that the School Bus is large enough to be an AoE.

 

 

However, beware a superstrong character weilding a Vault Door. Not a pretty sight.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

While it is true that you can swing the lighter object faster' date=' is it faster enough to equal the additional damage imparted by greater mass? In HERO terms, the answer seems to be No. Look at the clubs weapon table. All the clubs have the same DEF. The larger clubs have more BOD and weigh more. And the larger clubs do more damage, despite the fact that one can swing the smaller clubs faster. So in HERO terms, it seems that greater mass has more effect on increasing damage potential than swinging faster.[/quote']

But that's at least partially taken into account by the increased STR minimum. Actual weapons that are designed to be weapons work differently than objects used as weapons. Is a wooden stool going to do more damage than one leg of the wooden stool, assuming the same amount of STR is applied in each case? Yes. Because the max damage is still DEF+BODY, and one leg is going to have less BODY than the whole stool.

 

Taking you corked baseball bat example, I’ve read the issue with corked bats is that being lighter, they allow the hitter to get around quicker on the ball. Which means they are more likely to get a solid hit, but not that they are really going to hit the ball any further than the same quality hit with a normal bat. So in game terms, the lighter bat increases CV, but not damage.

That's my point. The damage is the same with a lighter bat.

 

And the bullet does not do its damage by “bashing†into its target, like the swung objects of opportunity do. It does its damage by piercing the flesh and doing internal damage (hence it’s a killing attack). True, rubber bullets do their damage by “bashing†despite their small mass. But they have greater velocity than “muscle power†can generate.

Whether it's bashing or piercing damage isn't the issue. The only reason bullets can penetrate flesh and kill is because of their high velocity. They aren't sharp. You can drive one into someone's flesh with your bare hands. Guns don't require your strength, they use the strength provided by the exploding gunpowder. The point is, the larger the bullet, the less velocity it will have, given the same amount of explosive force. Larger bullets usually have larger guns and more explosive force behind them so they can do more damage.

 

Also, I just thought of another thing I find somewhat objectionable about your system. In yours, the damage done by objects is equally dependent of the objects DEF as it is on the wielder’s STR. In fact, it is more dependent on DEF, since the amount of STR the character can use is limited by the object’s BOD. In my system, the damage is primarily determined by the wielder’s STR, with a small bonus based on DEF/BOD, and limited by the total DEF/BOD of the object. In other words, my system is more wielder-centric, while yours in more object-centric. IMHO anyway.

Interesting. I'm starting to confuse myself about this issue. I'm going to have to do some more thinking about it.

 

Part of the problem is there is no real world measurement of "amount of damage." We can measure force, velocity, momentum, accelleration, kinetic energy, power, mass, and hardness. The questions are:

 

1) How do we represent these things in HERO terms?

2) Which of these represents "Amount of Damage", i.e., what formula involving one or more of the above factors gives an accurate measure of how much damage is done by an attack?

 

Forceis, in general, represented by STR. It's a measure of the amount of force one can apply with one's muscles. In the case of guns or other non-muscle-powered weapons, the force is provided by some other source: exploding gunpowder, electric battery, cosmic energy, etc. In the case of bows or other strength enhancing weapons, the force of STR is amplified by the device, usually a simple machine such as a lever, pulley, or spring. F

 

Mass is sort of represented by BODY. If you want to be more accurate, you can determine the actual mass of an object. For characters, 10 BODY = 100 kg (presumably). So 1 BODY for each 10 kg is a fairly good guideline. M

 

Hardness is kind of represented by DEF, but not quite, as we've shown in this discussion. H

 

The Acceleration imparted to object is equal to the force applied divided by the mass of the object. That is, STR/BODY. A

 

The Velocity an object reaches is it's acceleration times the amount of time it spends accelerating. Acceleration x Time, or Distance/Time. V

 

Momentum = Mass x Velocity. (I forget what abbreviation physicist use for momentum. I may be a Greek letter. Here, I'll use N.)

 

Kinetic Energy = Mass x Velocity x Velocity (=MV^2). You could also think of it as Mass x Acceleration x Distance. E

 

Power might be a better interpratation of STR than force. It is a measure of how much energy can be generated per unit of time. In HERO, time is measured in segments or phases. It seems to me off hand, that power is might be well represented by STRxSPD. Hmmm... That doesn't quite work. That would be Ft rather than Et. Perhaps STR is more precisely the amount of kinetic energy one can generate per phase. Well, I've just convinced myself that STR=Power, not Force. (I don't know if I've convinced you anything other than that I'm a pedantic nerd who spends way too much time thinking about these things.) And I may well convince myself to go mack to Force again before this discussion is over. P

 

My feeling now is that damage is more a reflection of kinetic energy, rather than momentum as I had been arguing earlier. The far end of a baseball bat has far more energy than the end in your hand, that's why it does more damage than your plain fist. And Hardness still has to come into play somehow.

 

I think I've put everyone to sleep now, and I think I'm going to have to sleep on it before saying any more.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Your assumption that BODY = Mass is flawed, I think. It is possible to have a low-mass high-durability material. If mass = durability (BODY) then titanium wouldnt be significantly better than alluminum.

 

IIRC the HERO System assigns BODY via thickness, so that a highly durable substance stretched thin would be less tough than the same mass of the substance folded into a block. DEF and Mass are the same in that case, but BODY is different.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Yes. That's why I said, "sort of."

 

BODY is sort of like mass.

STR is sort of like force, or power, depending.

DEF is sort of like hardness.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Yes. That's why I said, "sort of."

 

BODY is sort of like mass.

STR is sort of like force, or power, depending.

DEF is sort of like hardness.

 

 

I would say rather that trying to apply physics to an arbitrary game mechanic is doomed to a frustrating end.

 

The game mechanics abstract the concepts of structural integrity, load bearing, and resistance to a wide variety of stresses ranging from blunt impact to cosmicly charged theta-gamma-beyonder rays in a fashion that works uniformaly across numerous genres and a variety of "bendy-science" environments.

 

There are some intrinsic flaws to this approach, but it basically works as a simple "undamaged", "damaged", "broken" three-state system.

 

My only gripe is that the rules for using an object to hit something vary in effectiveness regarding whether the object in question is labled as a "weapon" or labled as a "nonweapon", which doesnt make much sense.

 

Hitting someone with a stout chunk of wood shouldnt vary in effect based upon whether the chunk of wood is called a "club" or not. A hand attack should be a hand attack. An escrima stick or billy club might be more weildy and stand up to service as a weapon better, but a sturdy branch or a bar stool or the haft of a pool cue should all behave in a somewhat similar fashion to the clubs.

 

A Stop sign wouldnt hold up to the rigors of combat for long, but it wouldnt be much different from getting hit by an axe until the edges of the sign deformed or the bolts holding the sign face to the pole sheared off.

 

Hitting someone with a shovel shouldnt be much different from smacking them with a lucern hammer, until the head snaps off of the haft.

 

Etc etc.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

I would say rather that trying to apply physics to an arbitrary game mechanic is doomed to a frustrating end.

I agree. I don't think that's what anyone here is trying to do. What I'm trying to do is come up with a game mechanic that more closely represents physics. I merely pointed out that some of the existing game mechanics already have some similarity to physics.

[Blue]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Oh, whatta you know: you got a nail in yer head!

 

I pretty much wing it when it comes to things like this. I've been known to...

--Subtract the weight of a big object from someone's STR then add club damage to get the total number of dice. But this of course gave diminishing returns on really big things.

--Look up the STR required and add that to the player's STR level for calculating damage. This was bad because it meant you could never do more than 5pts above your normal STR (swift thinking = me)

--Make up an arbitrary number of dice and apply it.

 

Funny enough, my players and I have been traditionally happiest with this last one. Usually goes something like this...

 

"I want to hit him with a public mail box"

"Okay. It's bigger than a club, but hard to swing if you intend to keep a hold of it. -2 OCV, +6D6, but you can only do BODY up to the BODY+DEF of the object, then it splinters and the rest is wasted effort".

"OK."

[JamesG]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Have to say I agree with Shrike’s general feelings on why objects of opportunity (OoO) should, at least some of the time, generate “bonus†dice of damage, over and above STR damage. Though I do have issues with his system (more on that to follow). And I would not go as far as he on converting damage (for instance, I would not convert a stop sign to killing damage, even though I can see his logic in saying the edge is analogous to an axe).

 

Also, I have to agree with Shrike that you trying to bring too much physics into this Phil. Have to admit my eyes glazed over going through the Force…Mass...Hardness…etc post. (No offense, I’m sure some have felt the same about my own long-winded posts).

 

Anyway, I think you may be overcomplicating things.

 

Now on to some specific responses…

 

 

(* not all bricks are necessarily superstrong).

 

I beg to differ. According to the intro to The Ultimate Brick, the definition of “Brick†is “Slang term for a character whose main attribute is high STR.†It is true that not all Bricks are highly resilient, but they are all very strong, by definition. Anyplace I use the term ‘brick’, I am referring to a high STR character.

 

Not in practice. Few Items have enough DEF to be truly effective in the hands of a superstrong character.

 

There are plenty of objects that have 3 or 4 DEF. That’s like giving a “free†haymaker. Now, if you limit the d6 from the object to its DEF+BOD (or slightly more), then it will be true that superstrong characters will have trouble finding objects that will be more effective than their regular STR damage.

 

On the plus side, the damage from objects used in this fashion is basically "Cream" since the character's STR damage likely exceeds or at least cuts into an opponents defenses, so the item damage is extra above that. Even a few d6 additional damage can have a huge effect.

 

As far as it making "bricks" to powerful, not really. All characters get the same bonus from using objects as weapons. The only difference is that the "brick" probably paid for more strength. So they get the same "add" from a similar object as a weaker character, the only difference being that they are able to use heavier objects than a weaker character; a privelege for which they paid for in the form of their higher strength.

 

I agree that both high and low STR characters can take advantage of your system, as it should be. But what I said is it makes Bricks too effective. Only Bricks are likely to have their STR damage at or close to campaign DC limits. So when they use OoO to add damage, they will be exceeding the normal limits. Lower STR characters using OoO will most likely not be exceeding the regular DC limits. And as you stated, just a few D6 of “cream†damage can have a huge effect.

 

Now, with “my†system, Bricks can also exceed the regular DC limits. But the number of extra D6s will usually be lower than what they would get with your system, plus they may suffer a number of CV penalties. I do not believe your system imposes any extra CV penalties to act as a mitigating factor.

 

On the downside there is excessive property and collateral damage to contend with and the negative image involved with smashing up cars, dumpsters, lightpoles, and so forth. And heaven help the hero that chucks a mailbox full of mail -- thats a felony

 

Agreed, this can be an effective limiter to heroic characters, particularly Bricks, using OoO as weapons indiscriminately. It applies equally to both our systems. But I’d be careful in applying it too strictly. If the character is fighting someone of really serious threat level, like Dr Destroyer or Mechanon, then I think the authorities and public opinion might be more forgiving of collateral damage.

 

Also, since its based on DEF, not DEF+BODY, a School Bus and a metal pole will offer about the same bonus -- its the material strength, not the size or mass thats being factored in. The main difference is that the School Bus is large enough to be an AoE.

 

Well, as I’ve mentioned in my debate with Phil, I find that systems that don’t factor BOD into the damage equation unrealistic. I do agree that DEF should be the dominant factor.

 

Another advantage the higher BOD, in both our systems, is that the object is likely to last for more swings before being destroyed.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Oh' date=' whatta you know: you got a nail in yer head![/quote']

So how many d6 of KA did it do?

 

And you're one to talk! You've got a heiroglyph on your face!

[JamesG]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

But that's at least partially taken into account by the increased STR minimum.

 

Not really. A “Stick†has STR Min of 5, does 2d6N damage, has a DEF/BOD of 3/3 and a mass of 0.9 KG. A “Club†has STR Min of 10, does 4d6N damage, has a DEF/BOD of 3/5 and a mass of 1.5 KG. Wielded by a STR 10 character, the Stick does 3d6N and the Club does 4d6N. The only difference between the Stick and the Club is the Club has higher BOD/Mass, and the Club does higher damage.

 

This seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that in HERO terms, items of higher mass should to more damage to similar items of lower mass, all other factors being equal.

 

Actual weapons that are designed to be weapons work differently than objects used as weapons.

 

That’s why I choose the ‘club’ weapon type as an example. Its pretty much just a well made OoO. I don’t think it differs much from OoO in how it inflicts damage, though it itself can probably stand up to being used as a weapon better (its less likely to break).

 

Is a wooden stool going to do more damage than one leg of the wooden stool, assuming the same amount of STR is applied in each case? Yes. Because the max damage is still DEF+BODY, and one leg is going to have less BODY than the whole stool.

 

Also yes because the stool is heavier than the leg, and should get more bonus damage. Actually, assuming the stool is DEF/BOD 3/3 and the leg is 3/1, they will do the same damage in the hands of a STR 5 person in your system. They might in mine too, but only because I cap damage at double STR damage.

 

That's my point. The damage is the same with a lighter bat.

 

Sorry, thought you had been implying that the lighter bat did MORE damage due to being swung faster.

 

Whether it's bashing or piercing damage isn't the issue. The only reason bullets can penetrate flesh and kill is because of their high velocity. They aren't sharp. You can drive one into someone's flesh with your bare hands. Guns don't require your strength, they use the strength provided by the exploding gunpowder. The point is, the larger the bullet, the less velocity it will have, given the same amount of explosive force. Larger bullets usually have larger guns and more explosive force behind them so they can do more damage

 

I agree that a larger bullet will have lower velocity than a smaller bullet, given the same explosive force. I think everyone on this thread can agree with that one!

 

But the question is, does the higher mass offset the lower velocity for damage causing purposes? And if so, to what extent? I feel my “club†example shows that the HERO precedent is higher mass is more important than higher velocity. But looking at bullet damage is apples to oranges when comparing to OoO damage, IMHO. Because Killing Damage uses a significantly different mechanic than normal damage. That’s what I was getting at with piercing vs bashing.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

So how many d6 of KA did it do?

 

And you're one to talk! You've got a heiroglyph on your face!

the two of you remind me of 7 of 9 and Chakotay.

[Zanthis]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

I'd say stay away from using bullets as comparisons. They haven't even figured out the optimal bullets for stopping a person in real life because the effects of bullets striking people is extremely complex (hydrostatic shock, tumbling, fragmentation, pass through, etc). The confusion even resulted in a few bad (and dangerous) gun and load out choices by certain agencies and police departments.

 

Anyways, sorry if this has been said (its late and I skipped around in the thread a bit):

 

As to physics of bashing people over the head, the base formula in RL is F=mv^2 (that's Force = mass times velocity squared). That being said, the faster you can swing it, the more damage you should be able to deliver. However, the heavier it is, the tougher it is to swing fast. On top of that, longer objects allow you to generate a lot more angular momentum (meaning the tip of a long club can be moving much faster than a shorter one). Since the momentum is being squared, this can become very significant.

 

Additionally, should the object you are swinging take damage (lose BODY as a result of the swing) that amount should really be subtracted from the damage dealt to the target since the object is absorbing some of the energy of the impact, rather than imparting all that energy to the target.

 

For a real life example, one of my old martial arts instructors was asked to participate in a study of which club was better for the police: the straight billy club or the night stick (kinda T shapped). The thought was, since you could spin the night stick and generate higher angular momentum you'd be able to deliever more damage. After many different tests and techniques the results where wholely unspectacular: the come out pretty much even.

 

So how you want to turn that into Heros rules is an interesting question, one I will have to let sink into my brain over the course of a few days. I would definately be interested if whoever said they were going to compile the results of this thread is still planning on it.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

the two of you remind me of 7 of 9 and Chakotay.

 

7 did not have a nail in her fa

 

oh wait

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

As to physics of bashing people over the head' date=' the base formula in RL is F=mv^2 (that's Force = mass times velocity squared). That being said, the faster you can swing it, the more damage you should be able to deliver. However, the heavier it is, the tougher it is to swing fast. On top of that, longer objects allow you to generate a lot more angular momentum (meaning the tip of a long club can be moving much faster than a shorter one). Since the momentum is being squared, this can become very significant.[/quote']

Not quite.

Force = mass x acceleration

Momentum = mass x velocity

Kinetic Energy = mass x velocity^2

 

If I throw a big rock and a small rock with all my strength, they will have the same momentum because the greater the mass, the less velocity I can achieve with the same force. (Granted, I'm ignoring factors like aerodynamics and muscular physiology, but if you used a mechanical catapult that generated the same throwing force every time, and conducted the experiment in a vacuum, the big rock and small rock work have the same momentum.) The small rock would have greater kinetic energy due to its higher velocity, while the big rock would have greater force due to its greater mass, since the accelleration of gravity affects both rocks equally.

 

And am I Chakotay or 7 of 9? Do we need a Borg smiley?

[Zanthis]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

Sorry, replace momentum with kinetic energy. Wasn't trying to go for overmuch detail, hence I left out the chapter on angular velocity . Doesn't change the physics though, higher kinetic energy = more damage. If you don't believe me, then you have nothing to fear from those satellite dropped tungsten rods since they have no warheads. Sure, they pull something like 45,000g going down, but don't worry, it's just kinetic energy .

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

 

And am I Chakotay or 7 of 9? Do we need a Borg smiley?

Well, I don't see any visible tatoos on your head.. as far as things going through it, that's another matter....