Kinetic Energy Standards

[DarkDragonMedeus]

As I said, instead of saying it has to be used offensively; I think it should be worded as it should still be a strength/power feat. Swinging a sword to block bullets is a speed feat and not really a strength feat so I wouldn't use that. Neither is the hammer to build buildings really fast. But moving a giant object at great speeds even if not used offensively is still a strength/power feat and should still be used for KE.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think of Dargoo's suggestions?

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to ask DontTalkDT to comment here again?

 

[Andytrenom]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Is somebody willing to ask DontTalkDT to comment here again?

Has anybody done this yet?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I would remove "An object moves at said speed due to the secondary effects of an attack" mainly because it contradicts "There is a destruction/AP calculation along with a speed calculation", as an explosion or "secondary attack" would have a destruction/AP value.

I don't think it contradicts it or at least it isn't supposed to be. It's the difference between having a KE calc for an object and a calc for the destruction it causes and having a KE calc for the destruction it causes and another calc for the destruction it causes.

That is an important difference, as in the former case the conflict of the measurement would arise in energy disappearing to nothing, when it shouldn't. In the latter case you have clearly quantified were the energy is - in the secondary effects. In other words there is no contradiction, as no energy is no energy unaccounted for. You just have one calc that considers more of the total factors than the other.

To better express that maybe we should change the wording to "There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation."

I would additionally add in the "Do not" section that the KE of carried objects should only be for objects that are being used offensively; I.E. someone using a sword to block bullets as opposed to someone using a sword to slice through something at hypersonic speeds. Or attacking somone witha hammer at supersonic speeds as opposed to rapidly building a house with a hammer and nails.

I disagree, because I don't see why someone carrying a mountain at mach 1 for no reason whatsoever shouldn't be an acceptable feat. Or moving earth to change the season. Or moving stars in the night sky in order to put them into a magic circle.

As long as its clearly a feat of strength, i.e. the object would need superhuman strength to move, I think KE is fine.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think @DontTalkDT's suggestions are fine.

Regarding this:"To better express that maybe we should change the wording to "There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation.""

I think the wording change is can be added in @DontTalkDT's draft because I think it would lower confusion regading the proposed rule thus improving the draft futher.

 

[Andytrenom]

I agree with Donttalk very much

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I also agree with DT

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalkDT can apply his suggested changes then, with the additional update that he mentioned in his last post.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have done so.

 

[Andytrenom]

Alright, now I guess we can move on to revising characters. This thread seems to be finished

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you very much to everybody who helped out.

 

[Antvasima]

The big updates would be that we need to use other feats to decide the statistics for all the characters scaled from Spider-Man (Marvel Comics) and Katana (Post-Crisis).

Is somebody willing to start revision threads for this?

I would appreciate the help.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know they were going to part of the major Marvel and DC revision threads. Which the DC project was still on going last I checked.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we need one or two new revision threads in order to get anything done on that front. It should probably be highlighted as well, given that Marvel is our most popular franchise in terms of what our visitors like.

 

[Ugarik]

Perhaps we should add one more rule regarding lifting strength

 

[Antvasima]

Please elaborate regarding what you mean.

 

[DMUA]

Now that I look back on this thread, we never actually removed carrying being applicable for KE from the page

 

[Andytrenom]

"As such feats like just running or carrying a small object, like another character, should only be used if the fiction has made clear that the speed of the movement correlates to the character's power or if the character uses the fast moving object to attack"

Did we not?

 

[Antvasima]

Really? That should probably be handled then, but I do not remember the specifics of this thread very well.

 

[Antvasima]

Would you be willing to handle it DontTalkDT?

 

[DontTalkDT]

"As such feats like just running or carrying a small object, like another character, should only be used if the fiction has made clear that the speed of the movement correlates to the character's power or if the character uses the fast moving object to attack"
Did we not?

^That.

We have carrying of small objects as inappliciable for AP on the page.

 

[Andytrenom]

We did revise the page so that carrying humans isn't automatically applicable tho

Edit: Ninja

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Never mind then.

 

[Andytrenom]

Permission to close this thread if that's settled?

 

[Antvasima]

Of course. That should probably be fine.