From: PCHEM14@Zeus.unomaha.edu (FALL88)
Subject: Re: Hero System damage
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:35:24 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

trip@cco.caltech.edu writes:

> Minor nit: Weapon damage isn't 'system'. It's world background. The fact
> that it's for the 'real world' doesn't change that. It just makes errors
> more obnoxious.

> I think the best way to fix this is to increase the upper end damage. The
> book drastically underrates military weapons and armor. 20 Def (even
> hardened) is ludicrous for a tank. 50 Def is probably more reasonable.
> Tank guns, of course, should be studly enough to punch through that.

Since weapon damage is world background, the tank defense/offense may vary
depending on whether you want supers to be able to confront tanks directly
or whether tanks are so potent that this is not possible.  At 20 DEF, a high
point super may be able to confront it directly in a brick-esque comic style.
At DEF 50, you'd have to be playing characters way out of the intended realm
of the game to confront it in such a manner.  So it changes what supers are
in the game world.

In a game where, say, 'Superman' has a resistant PD of 40, tanks obviously
don't have a 50, or even 40.  More like 25-30, if that.  Otherwise, we change
what 'Superman' is.  In my game, I don't have to worry about it directly, (no
tanks in play during the game) but I'd not have to raise thier defense since
a big attack is 12 DC.  In another game I ran, where the heros were intended
to be really powerful, and their attacks correspondingly powerful (12 DC was
*average*), I'd probably still use the 20 DEF tank becuase it is in the 
definition of some of those characters to fight tanks directly.

As to the implications of expanding the damage to tank guns being able to
damage 50 DEF tanks, this sounds like 16d6 killing attacks.  Pretty hefty,
leaves lots of space for handguns.  How much do we really want stuff like
that to do though?

Depends on your game, especially your house rules on how damage is applied.
I choose to stick to an old 'sudden death' house rule, saying that any attack
that scores your BODY in a single hit kills you outright.  Therefore, to kill
a BODY 8 individual with 0 resistant defense (an average human, supposedly)
then you really don't need that much damage dice.  If you use the existing
.44 magnum (2d6 K, +1 stun x), then you'll score an instant kill 42% of the
time.  Make it so much as 2d6+1, and you expand it to 58%.  Anything past
that is starting to get to be simply too vicious, even by 'real world' type
standards.

However, if you don't have such a rule, or consider 10 BODY to be average,
or both, it gets more difficult.  With 10 BODY average people and no sudden
death rule, it becomes impossible to kill a normal with a single shot from
a .44 magnum without resorting to hit location rules (which does not really
help, because it just says you can't kill someone with a shot to the chest).
In these games, guns really need to be more vicious becuase the local style
of play makes people tougher.  Try 3d6 RKA, and get rid of that silly STUN
multiple increase.  Now it does more, and you haven't really changed much.
This puts assualt rifles in the 4d6 RKA range, .50 cals in the 5d6+ range
(I don't know...)

Once again, it all comes down to intent.  A 4d6 autofire killing attack is
the equivalent of a 90 active attack.  Do you want all your super-powered
folk to dispense with super-powers in favor of guns?  Part of the reason
I use 8 BODY normals and sudden death is to not make this a common occurance.

So, in the end, it all comes down to intent.  What do you intend for the 
characters to be like compared to normal weapons.  In every game I run, I
define how potent the normal weapons are.  It's absolutely necessary if you
want to know what all those little numbers really mean.

-james
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp