Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

[Markdoc]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I can actually think of a "superhero" who wouldn't sacrifice himself in this situation - Zenith. He was a special case though. In one case everybody thought he actually did sacrifice himself to save the multiverse' date=' but it was one of his interdimensional counterparts. He wasn't a Marvel or DC character, of course.[/quote']

 

Actually when really pushed to it, even Zenith was prepared at the very least to put his life at risk. Man, I always liked Zenith. It was sad he had such a short comics career.

 

cheers, Mark

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Well, technically you are correct. It doesn't work in the genre where heroes never win.

 

My point, however, is that it doesn't work in the genre where it is possible for the heroes to legitimately lose (I had to append 'legitimate' to distinguish it from those lesser failures a character can sometimes suffer to increase dramatic tension).

 

 

You have been trying to make that point over and over again and I still don't understand you at all. If your point is it could get the hero killed. Of course it could but our hero could get killed dozens of ways on most dangerous missions. I'm hard pressed to think of a hero who I would want to read about or watch who would have the same problem. Your arguement is totally unsupported by the material. In fact even most movie action heroes would be included.

 

I'm pretty sure i don't understand you despite your comment on the DCAU. Which I actully onder if you understand at all. Maybe Watchmen id more your speed.

[Greywind]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Or Wanted. That reality, the bad guys won.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

You have been trying to make that point over and over again and I still don't understand you at all. If your point is it could get the hero killed. Of course it could but our hero could get killed dozens of ways on most dangerous missions. I'm hard pressed to think of a hero who I would want to read about or watch who would have the same problem. Your arguement is totally unsupported by the material. In fact even most movie action heroes would be included.

 

I'm pretty sure i don't understand you despite your comment on the DCAU. Which I actully onder if you understand at all. Maybe Watchmen id more your speed.

 

Well, as I have said, the purpose of the example wasn't to say that Superman should be more real or that I would prefer a different genre.

[RexMundi]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

This is why I've been on board the return of Valiant comics and a few other things......

 

In the end I think it comes down to something like this. Marvel, tells a better anthology of short stories all set in one world. DC, does a better Grand Scale Epic, and their characters and directions reflect that.

~Rex

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

So... your villain has secretly planted a fourth bomb in a school.

Superman: "Wait... Only 4? Are you sure? Because I threw 5 bombs into space."

 

Off topic' date=' but it mostly works for me. Most Normals have 8s in my games so some Int might be lowers (might put those points into Running) but aside from that, it works for me.[/quote']

It really shouldn't. Jordan could bench ~250 lbs. strength 10 lifts ~220 lbs. and the average person cannot lift 165lbs. and stagger around with it, which is what an 8 represents. Even by this he would be str 11-12, but he's not known for his strength, he's known for his speed, skill, and agility. Since those are what have made him legendary (in a very literal sense) he probably has at least a 14 Dex (probably 20), 4 speed (maybe 5) as he got to act a lot more than the people around him, and he probably had basketball on a -14. The man is still considered one of (if not THE) most capable basketball players on Earth.

 

Remember: Jordan wasn't an average dude, he is literally a living legend because of his abilities.

 

I think the biggest problem I'm having here is that some of this seems utterly ludicrous. Even if Cassandra's Superman showed up in real life, I'd never call him Superman, Superjerk, Fakeman, something like that, but he's not nearly powerful enough or tough enough to be Superman. He definitely isn't powerful enough to hold that title, because unlike Superman, you hit him with an anti-tank weapon, and he will keel over. Period. You can easily build better on 250 points.

 

Here's a horrifying thought: That Superman would run into a single Power Ranger and die.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

It really shouldn't. Jordan could bench ~250 lbs. strength 10 lifts ~220 lbs. and the average person cannot lift 165lbs. and stagger around with it' date=' which is what an 8 represents. Even by this he would be str 11-12, but he's not known for his strength, he's known for his speed, skill, and agility. Since those are what have made him legendary (in a very literal sense) he probably has at least a 14 Dex (probably 20), 4 speed (maybe 5) as he got to act a lot more than the people around him, and he probably had basketball on a -14. The man is still considered one of (if not THE) most capable basketball players on Earth.[/quote']

 

All of this depends on where you set the benchmarks. 13 DEX, 3 SPD is a substantial natural aptitude advantage over average people with 8 DEX, 2 SPD. Now, if we were playing Basketball Hero, I'd expect that basketball-related skills would be broken down a lot finer, so it would not be "Basketball 14-", but a series of skills involving stealing the ball, controlling the ball, maneuvering, blocking, shooting, etc.

 

But we're not, so Jordan works just fine as a Normal with a 13 DEX, 3 SPD and a Basketball skill that ranks him among the best in the world.

 

I think the biggest problem I'm having here is that some of this seems utterly ludicrous. Even if Cassandra's Superman showed up in real life, I'd never call him Superman, Superjerk, Fakeman, something like that, but he's not nearly powerful enough or tough enough to be Superman. He definitely isn't powerful enough to hold that title, because unlike Superman, you hit him with an anti-tank weapon, and he will keel over. Period. You can easily build better on 250 points.

 

Here's a horrifying thought: That Superman would run into a single Power Ranger and die.

 

"Nothing short of an exploding shell can penetrate his skin", or something like that, was the original Superman durability description. Stupid power creep!

 

Whether Supes as written by Cassandra is more powerful than a Power Ranger depends on how one stats out the Power Ranger. Assuming one envisions Power Rangers as being less powerful than Superman, they would simply be constructed as such. Hero is not a game of absolutes - comparative character power depends on how each character is constructed.

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

All of this depends on where you set the benchmarks. 13 DEX, 3 SPD is a substantial natural aptitude advantage over average people with 8 DEX, 2 SPD. Now, if we were playing Basketball Hero, I'd expect that basketball-related skills would be broken down a lot finer, so it would not be "Basketball 14-", but a series of skills involving stealing the ball, controlling the ball, maneuvering, blocking, shooting, etc.

 

But we're not, so Jordan works just fine as a Normal with a 13 DEX, 3 SPD and a Basketball skill that ranks him among the best in the world.

 

 

 

"Nothing short of an exploding shell can penetrate his skin", or something like that, was the original Superman durability description. Stupid power creep!

 

Whether Supes as written by Cassandra is more powerful than a Power Ranger depends on how one stats out the Power Ranger. Assuming one envisions Power Rangers as being less powerful than Superman, they would simply be constructed as such. Hero is not a game of absolutes - comparative character power depends on how each character is constructed.

He's better than that and you know it. A professional basketball player will run circles around an ordinary man (speed 3), Jordan ran circles around the average basketball player (speed 4).

 

"Pierce his skin" Kind of like a cat's claw can pierce a human's. Still wouldn't kill him unlike an anti-tank weapon of the era would do to that "Superman". Most anti-tank weapons use energy, instead of physical damage (after all it is a jet of superheated matter or an explosion, two things that generally apply to ED), and as such they wouldn't just pierce his skin but kill him. The main gun on the tanks of the era were, when using APHEX rounds (though we call them HEAT) 8d AP RKAs (average 28 body), a gun like that hits her Superman, and you are cleaning him up with a mop. He takes an average of 20 body from that hit, which he will survive, assuming anyone takes him to the hospital before he bleeds his last 4 body out 48 seconds later.

 

Your average Power Ranger carries a very large RKA in the form of a laser pistol, rifle, or in some cases a cannon. Probably at least 3d6 (but closer to 4 or 5d) given what it does to the scenery when they miss (large explosions), that Superman is very much allergic to that kind of firepower, and Rangers are not known for stopping before their opponent is dead.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

He's better than that and you know it. A professional basketball player will run circles around an ordinary man (speed 3)' date=' Jordan ran circles around the average basketball player (speed 4).[/quote']

 

Who says the average basketball player has a speed of 3? The key is establishing benchmarks.

 

If we assume that 90% of the population has a SPD of 2, with half of the remainder being sufficiently slow to have a SPD of 1, and the remainder having SPD 3, then a SPD 3 is exceptional, but not all that unusual (5% of the population). Under this model, setting many professional athletes at SPD 3 as a standard is reasonable. However, if we decide that the vast majority of the population has a SPD of 1 or 2, and only someone truly exceptional has a SPD of 3, then SPD 4 becomes reaction speeds so incredible that they are almost beyond belief. Only the most exceptional athletes would have a SPD of 3.

 

Of course, if we were playing Basketball Hero, we'd probably want to establish a range of 2 - 4 for pro basketball players, and they'd have lots of Basketball Maneuvers to use in Basketball Combat. They would not just roll opposed PS: Basketball skills, modified by complementary skills like teammate PS: Basketball and a Coaching roll to determine the winner of the game (or even the season).

 

"Pierce his skin" Kind of like a cat's claw can pierce a human's. Still wouldn't kill him unlike an anti-tank weapon of the era would do to that "Superman". Most anti-tank weapons use energy' date=' instead of physical damage (after all it is a jet of superheated matter or an explosion, two things that generally apply to ED), and as such they wouldn't just pierce his skin but kill him. The main gun on the tanks of the era were, when using APHEX rounds (though we call them HEAT) 8d AP RKAs (average 28 body), a gun like that hits her Superman, and you are cleaning him up with a mop. He takes an average of 20 body from that hit, which he will survive, assuming anyone takes him to the hospital before he bleeds his last 4 body out 48 seconds later.[/quote']

 

First up, the implication of an exploding shell was that it would injure, not just annoy, our Starting Superman. Second, if you are prepared to point me to a historical reference source on showing that WW II anti-tank weapons were 8d6 AP Killing Attacks, I'd be interested in seeing that. However, last I looked, Hero System was an abstract modelling tool, not an absolute scientific measurement scale so, again, we come back to a matter of comparability. If we establish that Standard Supers have a DC range of, say, 8 - 12, then it stands to reason we must stat out "real world" equipment with that range in mind. Standard Supers do, in the source material, successfully battle tanks. If we want our 60 STR Super to grab one tank by its gun muzzle and slam it into another, effortlessly destroying both, that implies a fairly low Defense/Bod for the tanks. If we want the shells to bounce off Standard Supers defenses, their damage must be set accordingly.

 

If we want a tank to be a threat, we beef it up a bit. Maybe we want standard High Def Supers to be dazed if struck by a tank weapon (so, on average, it should Stun them), and they might bend the gun back on itself in one phase, spend a phase Haymakering to rip the turret open, and drag out the driver. That sets a different standard.

 

Maybe we accomplish some of this with stats for military HW and some with "real weapon/real armor" rules that make military HW less effective against Supers ("real weapon" might reduce damage by some percentage, result in Standard Effect always applying, etc. while Real Armor might he reduced against Super attacks).

 

But it again comes down to setting benchmarks, and designing characters and the world around them accordingly.

 

Your average Power Ranger carries a very large RKA in the form of a laser pistol' date=' rifle, or in some cases a cannon. Probably at least 3d6 (but closer to 4 or 5d) given what it does to the scenery when they miss (large explosions), that Superman is very much allergic to that kind of firepower, and Rangers are not known for stopping before their opponent is dead.[/quote']

 

Large explosions and minimal collateral damage, IIRC. And, again, if we have established that Standard Supers have 8 DC to 12 DC attacks, then Power Rangers do not have 5d6 KA's. If we want to establish them as Standard Supers, then they might have as much as 4d6, but that means we are establishing that Power Ranger blasters are at the same level as Superman for this campaign, since 12 DC is our max and that is where we have set Superman and the Power Rangers. If we envision them as less effective, then we drop them down to 3d6.

 

Maybe we envision them as more effective (Superman fights tanks - these guys take out giant monsters!) so they get to do more damage. But not in my game. Bottom line, if we want both Superman and the Power Rangers in our game, we set the game's benchmarks and set each character's abilities in line with their perceived place in those benchmarks. If we have established Superman at the top of the scale, and the Power Rangers as middle of the road, and we have established Supes at 12 DC and 25 Defenses, then we set the Power Rangers below that, possibly at 9 DC and 18 Defenses. That may work fine for Cassandra's game. In yours, maybe you want Power Rangers tossing around 15 DC's, so if you want Superman to be more powerful, he needs higher DC's. But that's just a choice to escalate power and number of dice. It's not "wrong" or "right" as compared to a lower range, applied consistently.

 

I don't see a lot to be gained by having the powerhouses tossing around 30 - 40 d6. I see nothing to be gained by setting a game world where the real Supers have 25+ DC's and defenses in the 75 - 100 range, then telling the players "You cap out at 12d6 and 25 defenses, half resistant", unless the goal is a game where the PC's aren't able to play with the Big Boys - not the game I think most of us strive for.

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

 

Who says the average basketball player has a speed of 3? The key is establishing benchmarks.

 

If we assume that 90% of the population has a SPD of 2, with half of the remainder being sufficiently slow to have a SPD of 1, and the remainder having SPD 3, then a SPD 3 is exceptional, but not all that unusual (5% of the population). Under this model, setting many professional athletes at SPD 3 as a standard is reasonable. However, if we decide that the vast majority of the population has a SPD of 1 or 2, and only someone truly exceptional has a SPD of 3, then SPD 4 becomes reaction speeds so incredible that they are almost beyond belief. Only the most exceptional athletes would have a SPD of 3.

 

Of course, if we were playing Basketball Hero, we'd probably want to establish a range of 2 - 4 for pro basketball players, and they'd have lots of Basketball Maneuvers to use in Basketball Combat. They would not just roll opposed PS: Basketball skills, modified by complementary skills like teammate PS: Basketball and a Coaching roll to determine the winner of the game (or even the season).

Because of what they are capable of, they literally run circles around normal people, that means they need at least one more spd to accomplish that. The benchmark has already been set, they act more often than an ordinary person does, not just faster, but more often. Thus is the benchmark already set. 10% of the population quite handily describes the physically active in sports and of them, most are not fast enough to be professional, so if they were speed 3, the average professional sports player would have to be speed 4. Simply because that's how fast they are and Jordan was faster than most of them.

 

 

 

First up, the implication of an exploding shell was that it would injure, not just annoy, our Starting Superman. Second, if you are prepared to point me to a historical reference source on showing that WW II anti-tank weapons were 8d6 AP Killing Attacks, I'd be interested in seeing that. However, last I looked, Hero System was an abstract modelling tool, not an absolute scientific measurement scale so, again, we come back to a matter of comparability. If we establish that Standard Supers have a DC range of, say, 8 - 12, then it stands to reason we must stat out "real world" equipment with that range in mind. Standard Supers do, in the source material, successfully battle tanks. If we want our 60 STR Super to grab one tank by its gun muzzle and slam it into another, effortlessly destroying both, that implies a fairly low Defense/Bod for the tanks. If we want the shells to bounce off Standard Supers defenses, their damage must be set accordingly.

 

If we want a tank to be a threat, we beef it up a bit. Maybe we want standard High Def Supers to be dazed if struck by a tank weapon (so, on average, it should Stun them), and they might bend the gun back on itself in one phase, spend a phase Haymakering to rip the turret open, and drag out the driver. That sets a different standard.

 

Maybe we accomplish some of this with stats for military HW and some with "real weapon/real armor" rules that make military HW less effective against Supers ("real weapon" might reduce damage by some percentage, result in Standard Effect always applying, etc. while Real Armor might he reduced against Super attacks).

 

But it again comes down to setting benchmarks, and designing characters and the world around them accordingly.

Your standard super, isn't Superman, in fact it's a rare superhuman who can survive being hit by an artillery shell, much less only take minor injuries from it. The rules dictate that the weapons of the calibers used in tanks back during WWII had those stats, even with real weapon, it doesn't mitigate the fact that such a weapon will nearly kill "Superman" outright, he hasn't the body, or the defenses. For example: my brick has 40 pd/ed 26 resistant both sides 16 hardened, 25% reduction, with 20 body, 35 Con, and 74 stun. Were this character hit by the same shell, it would take 31.5 stun, and 7 body. This would almost stun my character and put a lot of body on it. That is what you are looking for. This "Superman" would be killed as a result of the same weapon.

 

The better way to do it is to give him more strength or build him on more points. Your average superhuman isn't 250 points either. More to the point, Cassandra's "Superman" is 50 strength, he's not going to be tossing around any of the WWII tanks except the lightest of the time. What you're saying is that you want to rewrite the world around your under-powered Superman, instead of scaling him to that world, and that is an incredibly tedious way to go about that.

 

 

 

Large explosions and minimal collateral damage, IIRC. And, again, if we have established that Standard Supers have 8 DC to 12 DC attacks, then Power Rangers do not have 5d6 KA's. If we want to establish them as Standard Supers, then they might have as much as 4d6, but that means we are establishing that Power Ranger blasters are at the same level as Superman for this campaign, since 12 DC is our max and that is where we have set Superman and the Power Rangers. If we envision them as less effective, then we drop them down to 3d6.

 

Maybe we envision them as more effective (Superman fights tanks - these guys take out giant monsters!) so they get to do more damage. But not in my game. Bottom line, if we want both Superman and the Power Rangers in our game, we set the game's benchmarks and set each character's abilities in line with their perceived place in those benchmarks. If we have established Superman at the top of the scale, and the Power Rangers as middle of the road, and we have established Supes at 12 DC and 25 Defenses, then we set the Power Rangers below that, possibly at 9 DC and 18 Defenses. That may work fine for Cassandra's game. In yours, maybe you want Power Rangers tossing around 15 DC's, so if you want Superman to be more powerful, he needs higher DC's. But that's just a choice to escalate power and number of dice. It's not "wrong" or "right" as compared to a lower range, applied consistently.

 

I don't see a lot to be gained by having the powerhouses tossing around 30 - 40 d6. I see nothing to be gained by setting a game world where the real Supers have 25+ DC's and defenses in the 75 - 100 range, then telling the players "You cap out at 12d6 and 25 defenses, half resistant", unless the goal is a game where the PC's aren't able to play with the Big Boys - not the game I think most of us strive for.

I wouldn't say minimal collateral damage, I'd actually say there is lots of collateral damage, buildings, veritable skyscrapers, are wrecked when rangers go out. They can't really show it (because wrecking so many vehicles a season would bankrupt them), but the implication is that when something is hit by a ranger or their enemies, it's wrecked unless it's really tough.

 

12 DC being the max is positively ludicrous, especially when dealing with 50m-tall monsters (which the Rangers deal with on a regular basis), we are talking something closer to 16 or 20 DCs. Keep this in mind: to get to 30-60 meters, we are talking 14-15 levels of growth, and they are closer to 60 than 30, so we'd use 15 levels of growth. This is above and beyond what they do at normal size (which again, can wreck hilltops) so the macro-sized combatants would be hovering around the 30 DCs range, which is enough to knock over a skyscraper readily enough. The Rangers have been shown being able to take hits from a macro-sized combatant, it hurts, they don't want to take it more than once, and they've been shown capable of damaging those macro-sized combatants as well at that size, so there will be a lot of damage reduction on most of these characters, but still relatively low defenses (probably 25-35).

 

Superman also fights giant monsters, the Rangers aren't supposed to be his equal, much less his superior. Which is exactly what they would be against "Superman".

 

Here's the absolutely biggest mistake you are making: You are taking a tank and reducing it in power to make it so infantry can fight it. That is not how it should work. When something is more powerful, it should be shown as being more powerful, on paper. An F-22 is not built on the same points as a P-51. Superman is not built on 250 points. Your average superhuman is also not built on 250 points.

[phoenix240]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

It really shouldn't.

 

Why shouldn't it? It represents in a human beings at much higher than the norms for human physical development (and mental if you leave everything at 10). Since I'm not going to be playing NBA Hero, the precise numbers (the difference between able to lift 220 and 250 isn't really going to matter most of the time) simply aren't that important. Having 10s in all your physical attributes represents being a damn good athlete that's either trained hard, has a ton of natural potential or both as far as my games go (or being a cinematic PC type). Being an "average dude" in my games mean you have at most and 8 in your attributes and your skills probably cap at 11- The game system is abstraction and there aren't any absolutes. It depends on where how you scale the world.

[phoenix240]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I think the biggest problem I'm having here is that some of this seems utterly ludicrous. Even if Cassandra's Superman showed up in real life, I'd never call him Superman, Superjerk, Fakeman, something like that, but he's not nearly powerful enough or tough enough to be Superman. He definitely isn't powerful enough to hold that title, because unlike Superman, you hit him with an anti-tank weapon, and he will keel over. Period. You can easily build better on 250 points..

 

Are you seriously suggesting that if a being with abilities that mapped to that character sheet showed up in the real world... people would scoff because it "wasn't powerful enough" or just being hyperbolic for effect?

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Why shouldn't it? It represents in a human beings at much higher than the norms for human physical development (and mental if you leave everything at 10). Since I'm not going to be playing NBA Hero' date=' the precise numbers (the difference between able to lift 220 and 250 isn't really going to matter most of the time) simply aren't that important. Having 10s in all your physical attributes represents being a damn good athlete that's either trained hard, has a ton of natural potential or both as far as my games go (or being a cinematic PC type). Being an "average dude" in my games mean you have at most and 8 in your attributes and your skills probably cap at 11- The game system is abstraction and there aren't any absolutes. It depends on where how you scale the world.[/quote'] That's genuinely wrong, there are absolutes placed in the game, they're even given to us to a very limited extent. Being an average dude in my game also means having 8s in every stat, but guys that do sports professionally (especially here in the states, at least in our major sports) are above average, not even a little above average, but significantly so. Also, that is a significant difference, because what you can bench press and what you can lift, are two very different animals. People can lift significantly more than they can bench press.

 

 

Most importantly: If I was going to take the time to stat him up, I'd actually put effort into it instead of just saying "nope, 10s across the board, I'm not that impressed with the greatest basketball player ever", the only reason I could even conceive of it coming up is if I was playing in another celebrity hero game, where we had celebrities gaining super powers.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that if a being with abilities that mapped to that character sheet showed up in the real world... people would scoff because it "wasn't powerful enough" or just being hyperbolic for effect?

I'm saying, I would scoff at him, and that he would be best served staying very low, because the real world can very easily kill a guy built like that. He'd also better stay out of any burning buildings, because they will kill him unless he wears proper protection.

[phoenix240]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

That's genuinely wrong, there are absolutes placed in the game, they're even given to us to a very limited extent.

 

 

Not really. The only "absolutes" are weights that can be lifted with Strength (and there are suggestions for altering that if you want). Everything else is relative to the rest of the game world. You can see that in how things have changed over the course of the game line and previous editions.

 

As for getting it "wrong", we're talking about opinion here. I've been playing and running Hero for over 20 yrs at this point. I do have some idea how it works. The benchmarks and guide lines given in the books are just that: guidelines not absolutes carved in the stone that shall not be deviated from.

 

RPGs in general are abstractions. They give us a set of tools for measuring and adjudicating actions in a game. They don't simulate "reality" very well nor should they.

 

Being an average dude in my game also means having 8s in every stat, but guys that do sports professionally (especially here in the states, at least in our major sports) are above average, not even a little above average, but significantly so

 

 

In your opinion. Athletes are physically "above average" (at least in the areas their sports call for me but how "significant" this is open to debate particularly in an rpg where its a matter of abstraction to begin with.

 

IME, their attributes don't matter very much in the end. The combat rules do a poor job simulating things like sports. Unless you're playing Sports Star Hero, that's fine. Given them a skill roll and some generally representative attributes and be done with it.

 

 

. Also, that is a significant difference, because what you can bench press and what you can lift, are two very different animals. People can lift significantly more than they can bench press.

 

 

How often is it significant in game play, at the table, during a session? I'm not interested in modeling someone idea of "reality" but whats important to the game world I'm running.

 

 

Most importantly: If I was going to take the time to stat him up, I'd actually put effort into it instead of just saying "nope, 10s across the board, I'm not that impressed with the greatest basketball player ever", the only reason I could even conceive of it coming up is if I was playing in another celebrity hero game, where we had celebrities gaining super powers.

 

 

Unless the game was about Michael Jordan I don't see the point to it. But YMMV. As for Jordan being "the greatest basketball player ever". Opinion. I tend to be leery of character sheet based on those kind of statements as it seems to lead to allot of unnecessary stat inflation (and you get things like the Cheetah Diggers write up based on 1000+ points).

 

 

Does the sheet represent some one who is physically above average who is very good at a particular sport? That's all it needs to do, IMO.

 

 

I'm saying, I would scoff at him, and that he would be best served staying very low, because the real world can very easily kill a guy built like that. He'd also better stay out of any burning buildings, because they will kill him unless he wears proper protection.

 

 

Interesting viewpoint. Can't say I understand it.

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

How often is it significant in game play, at the table, during a session? I'm not interested in modeling someone idea of "reality" but whats important to the game world I'm running.

Depends on the game really, in high-level superheroics, where you face giant robots, buildings getting knocked down, and whatnot:often enough. In low-level superheroics: not as much.

 

Unless the game was about Michael Jordan I don't see the point to it. But YMMV. As for Jordan being "the greatest basketball player ever". Opinion. I tend to be leery of character sheet based on those kind of statements as it seems to lead to allot of unnecessary stat inflation (and you get things like the Cheetah Diggers write up based on 1000+ points).

 

Does the sheet represent some one who is physically above average who is very good at a particular sport? That's all it needs to do, IMO.

Most games he would just be in the background, you'd have a rough approximation of his pd/ed, and body, but that's it, but if you were going to go so far as to stat him out completely, you ought to not half-buttox it.

 

Cheetah Diggers is probably ~1000 points now, she doesn't have any real limitations, has access to a well of magic that makes her roughly as powerful as some battleships, not to mention all of her martial arts, her 4 different forms, skills, perks (contacts, reputation, vehicles, bases, fringe benefits), talents, etc. She's been through a lot and has had numerous power ups over time. Her stats probably don't amount to even 1/4 of her cost though.

 

The sheet Massey showed us does that, but not to the raw extent of an Olympic-grade athlete like Jordan is, even if his intent was to illustrate exactly that.

[phoenix240]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Depends on the game really, in high-level superheroics, where you face giant robots, buildings getting knocked down, and whatnotften enough. In low-level superheroics: not as much.

 

 

Most games he would just be in the background, you'd have a rough approximation of his pd/ed, and body, but that's it, but if you were going to go so far as to stat him out completely, you ought to not half-buttox it.

 

 

The sheet does what its supposed to as far as my campaign goes. It represents a skilled athlete in or very close to their prime. In another game it my be "half assed" but that's getting into YMMV territory.

 

 

Cheetah Diggers is probably ~1000 points now, she doesn't have any real limitations, has access to a well of magic that makes her roughly as powerful as some battleships, not to mention all of her martial arts, her 4 different forms, skills, perks (contacts, reputation, vehicles, bases, fringe benefits), talents, etc. She's been through a lot and has had numerous power ups over time. Her stats probably don't amount to even 1/4 of her cost though.

 

 

Just FYI, the sheet I'm referring too was years ago, essentially a "starting level" Diggers. It really wasn't an attempt to be "faithful" to the character as she is now (or then) as with Enforcer84's high point write ups. It was more, IMO, the product of fanboy overestimation and trying to incorporate some genre tropes and literary shorthand (written characters only fail when the author wants them too) into game mechanics.

[Greywind]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

There are some players that say that Max Human Normal is 20, when Olympic-class weightlifters, by the basic STR chart, can have a STR around 25.

 

Everything is relative to the setting that the characters are expected to exist within.

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

The sheet does what its supposed to as far as my campaign goes. It represents a skilled athlete in or very close to their prime. In another game it my be "half assed" but that's getting into YMMV territory.

 

Just FYI, the sheet I'm referring too was years ago, essentially a "starting level" Diggers. It really wasn't an attempt to be "faithful" to the character as she is now (or then) as with Enforcer84's high point write ups. It was more, IMO, the product of fanboy overestimation and trying to incorporate some genre tropes and literary shorthand (written characters only fail when the author wants them too) into game mechanics.

I'd use that sheet to represent someone not quite good enough to go pro.

 

Like the nonsense I see about 40k's Space Marines, some of those players would swear an average space marine could one-shot Silver Age Superman.

[Greywind]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

First you'd have to build a SA Superman. Then you'd have to build whatever weapon they think would do the job. Problem with taking him out with one shot is targeting him first. His movement rate is second only to that of The Flash.

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I've got a rough estimation of what a bolt gun does and it's more than most rifles do, but only barely. Were I to use a SA Superman, it would be the one Massey posted earlier, and he wouldn't even notice a pea-shooter like that. I'm not even entirely convinced he'd notice it when in the presence of green k.

[Greywind]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Considering how much Supes loses when in the presence of Green K, he'd worry about a little old lady with a .22.

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Yet he always has enough power to get himself away from it.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

...

"Pierce his skin" Kind of like a cat's claw can pierce a human's. Still wouldn't kill him unlike an anti-tank weapon of the era would do to that "Superman".

Actually, that's pretty subjective. I would point out that with a modern ballistics vest it can be argued that it is quite possible for a person to take body in the form of broken bones and internal injuries without the bullet ever piercing the vest (or skin). I would speculate that an anti-tank weapon of the era wouldn't be a minor annoyance to Superman of the era like a cat's claw would be to a a human.

Most anti-tank weapons use energy, instead of physical damage (after all it is a jet of superheated matter or an explosion, two things that generally apply to ED), and as such they wouldn't just pierce his skin but kill him. The main gun on the tanks of the era were, when using APHEX rounds (though we call them HEAT) 8d AP RKAs (average 28 body), a gun like that hits her Superman, and you are cleaning him up with a mop. He takes an average of 20 body from that hit, which he will survive, assuming anyone takes him to the hospital before he bleeds his last 4 body out 48 seconds later...[/Quote]

Accurately modelling weapons like EFP's is tricky. Not impossible but tricky. They aren't exactly explosions since they direct the majority of the energy into the target but a person clearly doesn't want to be standing next to where one of them hits. The matter is at very high temperatures, so it isn't exactly physical, but there is still an awful lot of mass travelling very, very fast, so it's not exactly energy. All of that though is a complete side issue.

 

Your example probably does a great job of showing why you have to establish scales. I'm not sure where you are getting your 8d6 AP RKA but a 'howitzer shell' in 6e2 is only a 5d6 RKA explosion. Tank shells do not contain significantly more power than a howitzer shell, although they do deliver it in a different manner, which would probably equate from changing the explosion effect to an armor piercing effect. If you wanted to do a straight point conversion the 5d6 AP comes in a little low since the radius of the howitzer shell explosion makes it a +3/4 advantage, but by the time you toss in some additional effects to simulate 'splash damage' you're probably right in that range.

 

Likewise the Heavy Tank listed in the 5e Viper book lists the main gun as 5d6 AP RKA.

 

Does that mean you can't say that tank guns in WWII (which BTW are a lot weaker than modern tank guns) is 8d6 AP RKA? No, of course not. Lots of times people will decide that the base damage listed in the books doesn't work out well and will adjust the scale (I've actually done the reverse. Because the damage relative to how much people could lift seemed to low for one campaign I adjusted the amount people could lift so it was lower. As a result if someone capable of lifting a tank hit someone like Batman they would do a heck of a lot of damage. Similar effect through a different mechanism).

 

Just be aware that saying that a Superman doesn't work because he doesn't fit your modified scale is a little unfair. I can just as easily argue your Superman is too weak because I think that tank shells should do 16d6 RKA with does body NND (reactive armor) and turn your Superman into a stain. Doesn't really mean anything if I do that (and no, I'm not saying the damage from your tank shell is ridiculously high. Just carrying the concept of 'I think a tank shell should do more' to a deliberately absurd conclusion).

[Blau Stern]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

An era-appropriate anti-tank weapon would, in accordance with the write-ups we are given of those weapons, kill Cassandra's Superman. This isn't a "oh, let's take him to the hospital affair. Nope, dude's dead in 50 seconds.

 

I got that from the 5th ed book. a WWII era cannon (by caliber) is 7 1/2D RKA, APHEX adds 1 DC and gives it armor piercing, this represents an anti-tank weapon. This is the 5E Equipment guide page 64. On second glance I realize I was looking at the wrong entry. Though it's still a 7 1/2D AP for the 88mm cannon on the Tiger II, it's still going to leave "Superman" a mess on the floor. Even a 5d RKA would be bad news for "Superman" He'd be stunned every shot and the fall would likely do a lot of damage itself.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

An era-appropriate anti-tank weapon would, in accordance with the write-ups we are given of those weapons, kill Cassandra's Superman. This isn't a "oh, let's take him to the hospital affair. Nope, dude's dead in 50 seconds.

 

I got that from the 5th ed book. a WWII era cannon (by caliber) is 7 1/2D RKA, APHEX adds 1 DC and gives it armor piercing, this represents an anti-tank weapon. This is the 5E Equipment guide page 64. On second glance I realize I was looking at the wrong entry. Though it's still a 7 1/2D AP for the 88mm cannon on the Tiger II, it's still going to leave "Superman" a mess on the floor. Even a 5d RKA would be bad news for "Superman" He'd be stunned every shot and the fall would likely do a lot of damage itself.

Yeah. One reason I said I wasn't sure where you got it was because I figured there was a good chance that you probably got the number from somewhere (despite the fact that my later example was purely pulling numbers out of thin air and I think I even mentioned that you might have been using your own numbers) as opposed to just deciding to make them up.

 

Unfortunately any time you have lots and lots of books like we do with the hero system you end up with things that directly contradict each other (as in the same weapon presented in two different areas with different stats) or that semi-contradict each other in the form of the disconnect between a howitzer shell and a tank gun (incidentally, a 'heavy bomb' which I assume represents things like 2000lb. bombs only do 6d6 RKA so there is a real discrepancy between explosives damage in most books and those guns listed in the 5E equipment guide).

 

That leaves us in a position where we have to establish what's 'correct' and what needs adjustment. Unfortunately in this case I think those big guns in the 5e equipment guide are what need tweaking. 7 1/2d6 AP RKA means that shell has about the same amount of force as being hit by someone with 140 STR, which for a WWII era tank gun seems more than excessive.

 

Being stunned by a direct hit from the gun from a main battle tank probably isn't that out of line with Superman as he originally appeared. I seem to recall seeing a reprint years and years ago where he was on the outside of an aircraft flying through anti-aircraft fire (significantly less damaging than the main gun on a tank) and was concerned about being knocked loose from the aircraft by the airburst.

 

Of course comic books being what they are even early versions of Superman are hardly consistent. One issue he might shrug off an attack that was far stronger than an attack that in another issue stunned him. Writers were much more concerned with drama than being accurate.