HERO System Sixth Edition--What do *you* want to see?

[Nelijal]

I figure we may as well start a list now. With ten years worth of input, "SREd" should write itself.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Actually, better make that "Sixth HERO Rules Edition" = "SHREd" (it's more eupohonious). :)

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly
Actually, better make that "Sixth HERO Rules Edition" = "SHREd" (it's more eupohonious). :) SHREd, I like it, though I have no idea what eupohonious means.

[TheEmerged]

Sounds better, I think?

My hit list, no order implied. I'll admit right out the gate some of these are petty. Anything I put in bold is something I couldn't personally put my name on a Sixth Edition without addressing.

1> Damage Shield's requirements/cost brought back into line.
2> Either eliminate the "Talent" section outright, or move the "no roll skills" like combat skill levels, defensive manuever, Rapid Attack, et al into it so it's something distinct and coherent instead of "collection of neat stuff you can let PC's have without calling them Powers".
3> List "Ranged" under "Range Advantages" instead of separately. Similarly, put "Does Knockback" and "Double Knockback" under a single "Knockback Advantage" header.
4> Make Autofire gain +5 shots instead of doubling the shots after the inital 5. Drop the advantage back to +1/4
5> Expand "Dispel" the way Change Enivornment (among other) powers got treated in 5th. This is an underutilized tool in many campaigns, IMO.
6> Give a more thorough discussion of the applicability of powers for EC's, MP's, and VPP's.
7> Eliminate that "Trigger: Whenever I need it" example.
8> Place at least one, and preferably two, additional steps on the MegaScale chart (10m and 100m). Explicitly state this can't be done for movement powers of less than 10" per phase or single-hex areas.
9> Address the problem of STR & CON's over-influence on figured statistics, especially relative to PRE, INT, and EGO. I don't think the answer is increasing the cost of STR/CON, I rather think the figured attribute formulas need to be adjusted.
10> Move Suppress back to its 4th Edition status of being non-cumulative/not stacking with itself. There were balance/cost problems between Drain & Suppress under 4th Edition -- that favored Suppress -- and making Suppress cumulative/self-stacking eliminated one of the few advantages Drain had. You want a cumulative/self-stacking Suppress, take the Cumulative advantage.
11> The picture of Seeker looking up Damage Resistance is simply too funny not to use. If ANY piece of art gets recycled, this is it :D
12> Give Multiform the same increasing cost rule that Duplication, Followers, Base, and the Computer/AI rules have: if the value exceeds the point cost of the character, the cost changes to 1 pt per 1 pt over the character's value. Consider giving it the mandatory +1 Advantage Duplication has, as well.
13> Eliminate any examples in the rules/power descriptions that says you "shouldn't use this power to do this". This violates the "never get worked up about the right way to do things" policy.

I'll think of more, I'm sure.

[JmOz]

A few more

Remove Duplication, it is now handled as a form of summons

Instant Change is back (this is a trivial but cool power and to have to jump through hoops is wrong

Armor is history

New Regeneration rules, every 5 points spent reduces the amount of time needed to heal your recovery in body one step (starting at month, uses timechart) furthermore include the "healing" options of limbs and death, takes as long as one cycle to regain (Ie if you recover your body a day you would reserect in a day)

to ECHO: DAMAGE SHIELD DOES NOT NEED CONTINOUS, but should have the same +1 cost as some powers do in regards to AF

[Mutant for Hire]

My big alteration, if we're going to go all the way to a sixth edition is to take the basic powers and break them down into their component parts.

That is, instead of having separate powers for Armor and Force Field and Force Wall, for example, there is a base effect Armor and then you figure out whether or not it costs END to use, whether or not its personal or on a wall, how it gets invoked, etc. Essentailly to build every power from the ground up.


This can ultimately shrink the power list considerably and make it easier to build new and interesting power such as a wall of flame (using the Force Wall with the Armor effect ripped out and a KA used instead).

The idea is, HERO is really about having the ultimate power construction toolkit and I'd like to see it go to the logical conclusion. Instead of advantages like Constant and limitations like No Range, why not make choices like these part of the power construction process?

[BobGreenwade]

Actually I have several potential candidates for reform, some of which Steve has already addressed in either the FAQ or a HEROglyphs article (in Digital Hero).

However, the only one I'm really adamant about is Telekinesis. When I saw in 4th Edition that the cost had been raised, I was crushed, because I could no longer make one of my favorite characters viable in a game with Active Point limits.

My fix for Telekinesis is to 1) return the cost to the earlier 1 point for 1 STR, and 2) completely remove the Punch/Squeeze aspect of the Power. That should never have been introduced in the first place, or at most should have been a Power Advantage. It's a violation of Meta-Rule #5, "One Power should not be used to do what another already does." Currently, for 60 points I can lift and move things with 40 STR, and I can also do 8d6 of damage -- but isn't doing Normal damage at range the function of Energy Blast?

Then again, if my superheroes have a limit of 60 Active Points for their Powers, that 8d6 is going to be a bit wimpy, so I'd better buy a real Energy Blast at 12d6 -- except that I can still do 8d6 damage with Telekinesis. But why would I want to, if I can do 12d6 with Energy Blast?

I could go on and on about this, but I think you all get the basic idea.

[keithcurtis]

I'd like to see NO sixth edition! Don't you realize we'd have to buy our whole HERO library all over AGAIN? :)

Keith "cha-ching!" Curtis

[Chris Goodwin]

Include the Incomplete Character rules!

[Zoth]

What are y'all talking about we need Hero System 5.5 first so we can buy a 20% redone FREd, Hero System Bestiary and, Ultimate Martial Artist.

We can call it FREd senior :)

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Zoth
What are y'all talking about we need Hero System 5.5 first so we can buy a 20% redone FREd, Hero System Bestiary and, Ultimate Martial Artist.

We can call it FREd senior :) Wouldn't that be FREd junior?

[Zoth]

Originally posted by Nelijal
Wouldn't that be FREd junior?
hehe thanks, its late and I should get to bed before something bad happens :)

[zornwil]

I would really like to see a concentration on a "roll your own" flavor with a large section on how to design new capabilities and eliminate existing ones. I'd like to see fewer core rules/constructions with a larger collection of suggested uses in other books. But I am very much in the minority, a lot of people take great exception to scattering "new rules" (their terms) in genre books. I feel on the contrary it lends more specific flavor to those genre books and is not "new rules", rather it is simply specific applications of an underlying structure (if done correctly). For example, Instant Change would really be crucial in a superhero game but less important, to the point of non-consideration, in other genre. That or Instant Change ought to be recosted in superhero games to better represent its commonality and encouragement.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by zornwil
But I am very much in the minority, a lot of people take great exception to scattering "new rules" (their terms) in genre books.Yep, you're right, you're the minority :p . I have purchased genre books that I'm not really interested in just for those few rule pages that also apply to other genres.

[The_Hero]

OK, my take...

Fix Damage Shield!!!

Return Haymaker to a Str only maneuver and make it 1.5 times Str again...

only things I can think of...

[Lisa Nadazdy]

How about a 'rule-lite' variant? One of the great things about 4e, is that I bought a copy of the BBB, and several copies of the basic rules (the softcover ones), and handed them out to players during a game for reference.

Having a stack of 5e books would give me a hernia, I'm sure.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by Lisa Nadazdy
How about a 'rule-lite' variant? One of the great things about 4e, is that I bought a copy of the BBB, and several copies of the basic rules (the softcover ones), and handed them out to players during a game for reference.

Having a stack of 5e books would give me a hernia, I'm sure.

I think after a while, DOJ should release a Hero Lite PDF to the net. Small 20 page doc with the basic rules for character construction and combat. It would be a handy reference, and a good way to get new players into the fold.

Aroooo

[Aroooo]

As far as a 6th edition goes, I'm still absorbing 5th edition, so I'm in no hurry. Our group does more heroic level games than superhero level games, so I'm not going to talk about any changes to 5th just yet - the more obvious ones have already been mentioned.

I will only mention that folks should keep in mind that Hero is not just Champions and super heros, so don't go overboard with large or sweeping changes to make the rules more effective for one genre or another. Aside from a few minor points already mentioned, I think 5th ed. finds that hard-to find ballance of "universal" system.

Aroooo

[tesuji]

Reduce the size of limitations and advantages so as to remove 1/4s and 3/4 stages. Make the steps between each limitation level broad and distinct. Allow the lesser differences that are currently seen as the 1/4 stages to become FX and give better guidelines o using FX in GMing.

Expand the principle of "synergy price bonuses" beyond autofire nnd/aoe etc to also address the various other cases where an advantage or limitation should price differently depending on the type of defense it works against and so forth. (A subtle one... full phase action on no range powers as opposed to full phase action on ranged powers)

Expand into practice the notion of campaign specific costs and how to assess them, such as water breathing's value in an atlantean campaign.

Expand the guidelines for the final step in power creation... the "did this turn out right? Does it make sense?" assessment stage that would for instance stand up and scream to the highest yardarm that a result such as "and this fighting array that can get you up to +6 dex (no figs) but only in limited circumstance and taking actions costs 24 cp" IS DONE WRONG when in the same game +6 dex always all the time no action is only costing 18 and thats with figureds to boot. Right now it seems the default is "did i do the math right?" and not "does the result make sense?"

if the above are done, then by default damage shield should already be fixed.

Finally, and this will never happen, reassess the entire way advantages and limitations are handled. It really breaks down way too much. The difference betweem a 12d6 Eb and a 12d6 EB full phase is +4 ranged combat levels (20 cp) unless they are guns (OAF) in which case its +1 ranged combat level and a familiarity (6 cp) yet all the problems of full phase vs half phase still exist to plague the guy with the slow high recoil (FX for full phase) gun toter just like they were for the slowfire Eb guy. if the same problems exist, why should the "balance" in cost be less than 1/3 of the original?

[tiger]

I miss reflection

[Deejmeister]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire
My big alteration, if we're going to go all the way to a sixth edition is to take the basic powers and break them down into their component parts.

That is, instead of having separate powers for Armor and Force Field and Force Wall, for example, there is a base effect Armor and then you figure out whether or not it costs END to use, whether or not its personal or on a wall, how it gets invoked, etc. Essentailly to build every power from the ground up.


This can ultimately shrink the power list considerably and make it easier to build new and interesting power such as a wall of flame (using the Force Wall with the Armor effect ripped out and a KA used instead).

The idea is, HERO is really about having the ultimate power construction toolkit and I'd like to see it go to the logical conclusion. Instead of advantages like Constant and limitations like No Range, why not make choices like these part of the power construction process?

Here Here! I would like to see most powers start out no range/no end/visible ect. and let people pay more uniform base costs. (If you want your normal damage attack to work at range then buy ranged for it. Want it to add to your STR? buy and advantage for that. Otherwise it just does it's base damage as a touch attack.)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Originally posted by tiger
I miss reflection

Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?

[Talon]

I'd want to see the rules made more consistent and "standardized". FREd was an improvement, but there are still a lot of things that are inconsistent for no real reason (for example, the damage rules around page 270).

[Thag13]

I'm actully happy with the the system as is for now.

Of course, Imostly run mid level normal games and such, so the powers is not as crital for me.

That being said I feel most everything works decently well as is. My supers were usually of the basic Brick, Energy projector, Martial Artist, without a lot of the extra rules...Its just a style of play we do.

Interesting comments though, great Thread

[SkyKnight]

What I'd like to see is everyone on this thread playing the 5th edition rules as written for a while before they get too excited about making changes. This is especially true for people who want to go back to earlier versions of the rules. I don't necessarily agree with the way everything was done in FREd, but I'm sure that the changes are the result of multiple YEARS of play. We'll have plenty of time to try things out in the 10 years or so before the next edition.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Aroooo
I think after a while, DOJ should release a Hero Lite PDF to the net. Small 20 page doc with the basic rules for character construction and combat. It would be a handy reference, and a good way to get new players into the fold.

Aroooo

This subject was actually discussed quite a bit on the "pre-Denial of Service Attack" boards. To some extent the issue is addressed in the HERO System Resource Kit by the Character Creation Booklet and the tables on the GM's Screen (which also appear on the players' side of the screen so they can refer to them). However, a lot of people expressed an interest in creating a "lite" version of the rules to help newbies break into the system, less intimidating than FREd. Apparently Steve Long initially had no interest in doing such a project, but by the end of the discussion was convinced of the desire for it and promised to get to it as soon as he had the time. (There's responsiveness to customers for ya!)

IIRC, Steve's plan was for a stripped-down version of the rules: the main Powers and Modifiers without a lot of the descriptions and options; basic Combat Maneuvers without all the optional ones; and so forth. He suggested needing something in the 48-64 page range to do justice to the material, but was adamant about wanting it to be a free download from the website. Oh, and Steve himself suggested a name for it that the fans seemed to take to: since it's going to be a smaller, less-powerful version of the HERO System, he proposed calling it the HERO System Sidekick. :D

Now all we need is for Steve to find the time to write it; to quote Hamlet, "Aye, there's the rub." :(

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by SkyKnight
What I'd like to see is everyone on this thread playing the 5th edition rules as written for a while before they get too excited about making changes. This is especially true for people who want to go back to earlier versions of the rules. I don't necessarily agree with the way everything was done in FREd, but I'm sure that the changes are the result of multiple YEARS of play. We'll have plenty of time to try things out in the 10 years or so before the next edition.

I'm glad you said that, SkyKnight. There can't be a more fine-tuned and fine-combed game engine out there than 5E HERO. Granted, just about everyone has ideas about how to make something work "better"; tinkering is in the nature of HERO gamers. And of course, FREd encourages us to change whatever we don't like for our personal games. But as the comments on this thread illustrate, no proposed changes have close to universal approval (with the probable exception of Damage Shield, and even then, the proposed fixes are as numerous as the people suggesting them). A change that one person hates may be loved by someone else.

For my part, I've seen almost nothing in the new ruleset that's out-and-out broken - open to abuse if not closely monitored, but not broken. And I still don't grokk the new rules well enough to make definitive decisions about what I think should be changed. I want more playing time under my belt first. I do have faith that Steve Long didn't unleash any utterly ruinous rules on us. :)

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly
Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?

I'm not sure if this is what tiger meant, but FREd has a change in the rules for missile reflection: you can't abort to it, even though you can abort to missile deflection.

The BBB doesn't say you can't abort to missile reflection (as far as I can tell), it simply treats it as a special case of deflection. Since you can abort to deflection, I always assumed you could abort to reflection too.

I'm not sure why this was changed, or even if it really is a change: maybe it's just a clarification, and most people have always played it that way. I don't have a problem with it, as long as a character with missile reflection can at least abort to missile deflection. But FREd seems to treat missile deflection and reflection as more distinct powers than the BBB did, so I'm not sure if that's legal.

[slaughterj]

I want to see:

1. DAMAGE SHIELD FIXED! - It should only be a +0 Advantage on EB, and not require Continuous as part of its definition (an advantage would be required for it to work for the character's typical melee attacks). We can start yet another separate thread if an explanation is desired for my proposed cost structure.
2. Fix limited capacity Extra Limbs - if a limb is weaker, apply the lim to the Limb (pun intended), not to STR, else all the previously-discussed issues arise.
3. I like the idea of breaking down all the powers to their most fundamental parts, but think that might get a bit far afield from recognizable Hero (i.e., 2.5-3 pts for every 1D6 normal damage attack, without range, without STR added, etc.). Smaller fixes can be done that would be good though, like commingly Attack powers and Defense powers, so that if I want to buy a Drain vs. ED, I don't have to have it work vs. natural ED, Armor, and FF, or a Drain vs. an attack, but don't have to have it cover both EB and RKA.
4. Address the "mutually drained" aspects of EC powers and designing Drains, so that stupid shit doesn't arise - If you have an EC (TK powers) with FF and Flight, and Gravity boy wants to pin you to the ground, should his Drain Flight affect your FF?! Even more importantly, was Drain Flight the right power to have for that effect! Instead, what should happen is that if someone with a Drain 1 TK power comes along, then they hit all of them in the EC instead.
5. ECs were set up to deal with common source powers, yet often an MP is used at the same time - set up a smooth mechanic for tying them together and subjecting them to the Mutually Drained aspect (but see #4 above). I.e., Fire Dude with EC: FF & Flight, with a MP with 4 attack powers - if his FF is drained, so is his Flight (hopefully not stupidly, see #4), but so should his MP, though that's not the current setup (per a 5e question I asked Steve, he suggested a -1/4 lim get slapped everywhere).

[Harry Canyon]

Originally posted by zornwil
I would really like to see a concentration on a "roll your own" flavor with a large section on how to design new capabilities and eliminate existing ones. I'd like to see fewer core rules/constructions with a larger collection of suggested uses in other books. But I am very much in the minority, a lot of people take great exception to scattering "new rules" (their terms) in genre books. I feel on the contrary it lends more specific flavor to those genre books and is not "new rules", rather it is simply specific applications of an underlying structure (if done correctly). For example, Instant Change would really be crucial in a superhero game but less important, to the point of non-consideration, in other genre. That or Instant Change ought to be recosted in superhero games to better represent its commonality and encouragement. This is like the structure of so many things. But UI/Workflow design for software comes to mind.

Frequently, if someone finds a really good UI/Workflow in a program, it's because the design follows how that person "thinks". They want tool x and, lo and behold, it's right there were they expect it.

With a poor UI/Workflow, occasionally it's just designed by people with a different workflow, so it seems bad. Even though there are plenty of people who like that particular design. (Although it certainly could just suck by all standards! ;) )

Several have mentioned some good things, for one a Damage Shield does seem a bit pricey to me. <shrug> But I think they've managed to be very internally consistent with most things.

First, I've yet to finish the entire Black Tome of Goodness. :) With that said, what I'd like to see in a future version is quite frankly, better organization. What? You ask? How can that be?

Initially I was quite impressed. Quick rundown of the different types of powers, then on to the detailed descriptions of the powers themselves. Okay. So far so good. I finished the powers section and decided to create my first villian. (I'm a long time Hero player, so I figured I'd just look up the details as needed.) So I'm merrily jotting down powers and advantages/limitations and need to see their values. I look in the appropriate section. Strange... It's not there. On to the index! <flip, flip> Oh, there it is. What's it doing there? Why are some advantages and limitations only listed within power descriptions or power examples, instead of in the logical sections titled "Advantages" and "Limitations"? Certainly some arguement could be made that those powers are the ones they are most commonly used with. But how does that help the reader find them easily? I can also see arguement for not repeating them to save space. This is certainly valid and allows for more data in the book, but it doesn't help the "workflow" IMO.

Then again maybe "they" just "think differently" than I do. ;)

So, uhh... that's what I'd like... So far... :)

Take care,

Harry

[Dynamo]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly
Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?
Originally posted by Uncle Shecky
I'm not sure if this is what tiger meant, but FREd has a change in the rules for missile reflection: you can't abort to it, even though you can abort to missile deflection.IIRC, Champions II or Champions III had a power called Reflection. My copies of those books are boxed up in preparation for moving, so I can't look it up (that is, I'm unsufficiently motivated to go through all those identical laserjet paper boxes I collected from work), but I believe it was kind of like a Damage Shield that could affect ranged attacks.

[TheEmerged]

RE: The "Play it before you whine" Defense. Um, I have been playing it :D Note that a lot of my suggestions were layout or example issues.

In some cases, where I became aware of 5th Edition changes in advance, I've been playing with the 5th Edition changes for some time. Flash at 5pts per d6 (and operating by Segment) and Aid at 10pts per d6 (although we had it costing END and still healing) are things I've used for a couple of years now, and they work well.

5th is EASILY the BEST, most COHERENT and INTERNALLY CONSISTENT system out there -- by far, no comparison. That's not saying its perfect, because it isn't. Granted that many of the issues only appear in limited circumstances (the whole STR/CON thing isn't nearly the issue in superheroic campaigns it is in NCM-default campaigns) -- they still exist.

But don't mistake my efforts to improve on it for a statement that it doesn't work or I don't like it -- far from it. I would say that I love it enough that I want to make it better :cool:

RE: 1/4 advantage/limitation steps. Disagree with the suggestion to eliminate this, and strongly. One of the things I like about 5th over 4th is the increased number of purchase-worthy +1/4 advantages, because in a low-active-cap campaign quite often even a +1/2 advantage makes the power borderline useless unless the advantage is specifically geared toward affecting the damage (NND, Penetrating, Armor Piercing, Autofire, etc.).

Take AVLD for example. How many times have you actually seen a power built with this? I'd be willing to wager the answer is, Not Often. The reason of course is that in many ways you're paying an extra +1/2 advantage to have a power less useful (more likely to do less damage) than an NND. Which reminds me, I knew there was something else I would like changed in 6th :D

[Uncle Shecky]

IIRC, Champions II or Champions III had a power called Reflection. My copies of those books are boxed up in preparation for moving, so I can't look it up (that is, I'm unsufficiently motivated to go through all those identical laserjet paper boxes I collected from work), but I believe it was kind of like a Damage Shield that could affect ranged attacks.

That's right, it was introduced in Champions II, and it was not part of Missile Deflection (although it was modeled on it). The description in Champions II is interesting so I'm reproducing some of it here:

"...The character has a base chance of 18 or less for a cost of 30 pts., +1 per 3 pts. The character's chance to reflect is -1 for every 5 active pts. in the incoming attack. Each Reflection roll after the first is made with a cumulative -2 penalty .... The character's DCV is 0 while he is reflecting an attack. ..."

It's cool that it was the active points in the attack that made reflection difficult, not the attacker's OCV. And I like the drop to 0 DCV: you have to let yourself be hit to be able to reflect it back. I prefer the deflection-based power as it is now, but that's an interesting take on it.

The Champions II description doesn't specifically mention whether Reflection is passive (like Damage Shield) or whether you can abort to it like a block, but the example implies that you need to use a held action: "HONEYBEE had reserved her action, and attempts to reflect FLARE'S attack back."

So 5th edition has restored that "can't abort to" aspect, and maybe it was meant to be that way all along.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by archer
Include the Incomplete Character rules!

You'll get no argument from me :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by slaughterj
1. DAMAGE SHIELD FIXED! - It should only be a +0 Advantage on EB, and not require Continuous as part of its definition (an advantage would be required for it to work for the character's typical melee attacks).


This comes up a lot, but I tend to disagree on one aspect: I believe that Continuous very much should be a requirement for Damage Shield. However, I also think that in general Damage Shield is less useful than Continuous for Ranged Powers, and so should reduce its cost by -1/2 :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Nelijal
Yep, you're right, you're the minority :p . I have purchased genre books that I'm not really interested in just for those few rule pages that also apply to other genres.

Not as much of a minority as you might think, and I believe you are misunderstanding his point. The idea is to have fewer Powers that can all be expanded on to get all the ones currently in the book. For example, Instant Change was rolled into Transform (I know that a lot of people don't like this, but I rather do, and once it's built you just plunk down the 7 or 8 points and write Instant Change on your sheet).

As another example, one not in the current rules (but one that has been touched on in this thread, if my memory of the three pages isn't failing me), instead of having Armor and Force Field and PD/ED/DR, you just have PD/ED/DR, and can define a new power Armor as the three together, and Force Field as the the new Armor power with Costs Endurance.

In other words, all the rules would be in the core book: if that's all you're interested in, you never need to buy another book. Specific instances of how to use them would be in examples, both in the same core book and in other books.

I'd like to see that.

[Trebuchet]

1) Bring back "Shockwaves" for Bricks. It's absurd to have to spend 50 points on what amounts to a "Power Trick".

2) Consider a Power "Invulnerability" vs. single attack types or special effects, rather than using "Desolidification" as a bass-ackwards way to do it.

[ShadowRaptor]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
1) Bring back "Shockwaves" for Bricks. It's absurd to have to spend 50 points on what amounts to a "Power Trick".

2) Consider a Power "Invulnerability" vs. single attack types or special effects, rather than using "Desolidification" as a bass-ackwards way to do it.

I second this nomination for Invulnerability vs. single attack types, it would make it much easier than to use Desolodification, plus it would be much easier to say during a conversation. :D

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by GamePhil
As another example, one not in the current rules (but one that has been touched on in this thread, if my memory of the three pages isn't failing me), instead of having Armor and Force Field and PD/ED/DR, you just have PD/ED/DR, and can define a new power Armor as the three together, and Force Field as the the new Armor power with Costs Endurance.

Having played Hero for many years, as well as some published and fan Fuzion games - and I even have a copy of the Fuzion Champions, I'd just like to add my opinion to this conversation.

I'm not sure simplifying the Powers is a good thing, especially for new players. We've all seen posts from newbies sating that they are having problems making their first few characters. I remember making my first Champions character way back when. I was confused for a while.

Don't oversimplify the powers because "you" know the rules really well and know the difference between Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall.

Aroooo

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Not as much of a minority as you might think, and I believe you are misunderstanding his point. The idea is to have fewer Powers that can all be expanded on to get all the ones currently in the book. For example, Instant Change was rolled into Transform (I know that a lot of people don't like this, but I rather do, and once it's built you just plunk down the 7 or 8 points and write Instant Change on your sheet).

As another example, one not in the current rules (but one that has been touched on in this thread, if my memory of the three pages isn't failing me), instead of having Armor and Force Field and PD/ED/DR, you just have PD/ED/DR, and can define a new power Armor as the three together, and Force Field as the the new Armor power with Costs Endurance.

In other words, all the rules would be in the core book: if that's all you're interested in, you never need to buy another book. Specific instances of how to use them would be in examples, both in the same core book and in other books.

I'd like to see that. I went back and reread the original post and you're correct, I did misunderstand. The concept as originally stated and explained by you goes well with the idea of further breaking down the powers into more generic building blocks. This would probably reduce the number of rules, but would require more explanation and examples for people to understand how to build what they wanted, which would be covered in the genre books. Thanks for the clarification.


Originally posted by Aroooo
I'm not sure simplifying the Powers is a good thing, especially for new players. We've all seen posts from newbies sating that they are having problems making their first few characters. I remember making my first Champions character way back when. I was confused for a while.

Don't oversimplify the powers because "you" know the rules really well and know the difference between Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall.This is the big problem with this issue. It's kind of like programming in BASIC versus assembly language. BASIC is easy, but limits your flexibility if you try to get creative with it because its predefined components do things one certain way (though modern extensions to BASIC have tried to correct this), whereas assembly language has no predefined components and is very flexible, but requires a lot more effort than BASIC to accomplish a given task.

AD&D is the BASIC of RPGs, and I'm not aware of a game that resembles assembly language, but I'd call HERO a C/C++ style of game, which isn't a bad thing.

There really isn't a "right" answer here; it all depends on what you want from the system. I imagine Steve pondered this point a lot while writing FREd.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Aroooo
Don't oversimplify the powers because "you" know the rules really well and know the difference between Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall.


Well, that's the thing: which is simpler, a description of Armor and Force Field, and PD and ED as Characteristics with the possible added Damage Resistance, or simply PD, ED, and Damage Resistance? To me, the latter is simpler: there are fewer rules, the only problem being possibly with the application.

Yes, it is simpler to have a list that includes Force Field, Armor, and so on, to just take and stick on the character sheet fully written. However, like in the case with Instant Change, once the new ability is constructed, you just pull it out of the list and use it. Only if you need added flexibility do you go to the core rules.

So, if the theoretical 6th Edition were to be done this way, you would have some set of "Core Powers" and all the Advantages and Limitations you might need. Then put in the Power List, which builds all the Powers in Hero 5th with these new rules (except the ones in the Core Powers), describes in largely the same manner, shows how they are built (similarly to the much disputed Instant Change), and then summarizes the cost.

The final result? Armor costs 3 points for 2 Resistant Defense, Force Field costs 1 point for 1 Resistant Defense and costs END. So you have the same rules, but you have a different foundation to work from, with any luck one that is even more flexible than the one we have now.

But as I said before I edited for clarity, that's if it's done well. If it's done poorly, it would be the stuff of nightmares.

Whew. Sorry about that.

[Old Man]

1. Fix the weapon and armor rules so that they're at least sort of balanced, rather than the broken crap that came in Fred.

2. Change some of the power costs to better facilitate heroic level games. Flight and force field are way, way, way too cheap. Drains and transfers are too expensive.

3. Bite the bullet and change the characteristics costs to balance STR and DEX at the very least. Personally I'd like to see DEX broken up into at least two different stats, e.g. 'agility' and 'coordination'.

4. Fix the skill system to allow finer grain at heroic levels. DEX is the only stat where each point really matters. Other stats (such as INT) have about four levels of granularity.

5. Fix the bleeding rules.

6. Fix Damage Shield.

[GamePhil]

1. Fix the weapon and armor rules so that they're at least sort of balanced.

It's the same as in 4th Edition, but if you're referring to the Limitation values I kind of see your point. Still, since they are applied to Powers that are not generally intended to have points paid for them anyway, I don't see a severe balance issue. Even when they are purchased, they are in games where other people get almost the same thing for free (I buy a magic 3d6 sword, my buddy over there got the 2d6 one for no cost), I don't see a problem with them being cheap.

Still, I do favor consistency.

2. Change some of the power costs to better facilitate heroic level games. Flight and force field are way, way, way too cheap. Drains and transfers are too expensive.

I generally use, and wouldn't mind seeing, a Utility Advantage/Limitation: if it's really useful in this game, it gets an Advantage, if it's not so useful a Limitation. However, if it never exists officially I wouldn't be bothered.

3. Bite the bullet and change the characteristics costs to balance STR and DEX at the very least. Personally I'd like to see DEX broken up into at least two different stats, e.g. 'agility' and 'coordination'.

Can't agree there. I especially like STR as it is, unless revisions were made system-wide (if they were to, for some reason, eliminate EC's altogether I could see increasing the cost of STR). Dexterity is also frequently argued to be broken, but I have yet to see an argument that applies universally.

4. Fix the skill system to allow finer grain at heroic levels. DEX is the only stat where each point really matters. Other stats (such as INT) have about four levels of granularity.

What would you suggest? Using an OCV/DCV like system, like Fuzion did? Or something else?

5. Fix the bleeding rules.

What's wrong with the Bleeding rules? Or were you just being terribly British?

[Mutant for Hire]

1. Eliminate figured characteristics
Obviously, this may involve some adjustments of the STR and CON values, but possibly not. It makes bricks less cost efficient in some ways, but by eliminating figured characteristics, there is now the bonus that Bricks are not punished for putting STR into a Multipower with other Brick Tricks, which makes it more cost efficient to buy lots of STR.

2. Either eliminate COM as a characteristic or make it a more significant part of the game.
COM is really dead weight at the moment in terms of characteristics given that PRE is carrying the load for social stuff. I prefer something along the lines of an Advantage (gives bonuses to PRE rolls for the purposes of influencing others) or a Disadvantage (gives penalties for positive interactions but bonuses for negative ones).

3. Compress PD/ED into a single DEF stat
Of course players can by Armor with a "Physical/Energy Attacks Only" limitation. Why? A lot of people keep their PD/ED values at the same level, and I'm inclined to think that it probably would be easier to simply define DEF that way and then handle the exceptions of when physical defenses are different from energy defenses. The book keeping is a notch simpler for a lot of characters.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire
1. Eliminate figured characteristics
Obviously, this may involve some adjustments of the STR and CON values, but possibly not. It makes bricks less cost efficient in some ways, but by eliminating figured characteristics, there is now the bonus that Bricks are not punished for putting STR into a Multipower with other Brick Tricks, which makes it more cost efficient to buy lots of STR.


This idea comes up often enough that disassociating the Figured Characteristics from the Primaries is actually mentioned in the book now, as one of the options. I don't think I'd like to see it as a rule, myself, but if it were to be used you'd pretty much have to reduce the cost of CON, or give it other uses: at that point its only contribution would be resistance to being Stunned and the occasional CON roll, both useful but 2 points per point?

I don't see Bricks being penalized by losing Figured Stats with STR in a Multipower, though. It's really too powerful a slot and causes too many bookkeeping complications otherwise.



2. Either eliminate COM as a characteristic or make it a more significant part of the game.
COM is really dead weight at the moment in terms of characteristics given that PRE is carrying the load for social stuff. I prefer something along the lines of an Advantage (gives bonuses to PRE rolls for the purposes of influencing others) or a Disadvantage (gives penalties for positive interactions but bonuses for negative ones).


However, Comeliness is something everyone has, and many objects, as well. That's why it's a Characteristic, not because it's necessarily useful, but because it's always there. I wouldn't mind more examples of its utility, though it should never be more useful than the 1/2 point cost. I also wouldn't mind some concept of "subjective attractiveness", but that's almost certainly beyond the scope of a core rulebook unless it can be condensed into a short paragraph.



3. Compress PD/ED into a single DEF stat
Of course players can by Armor with a "Physical/Energy Attacks Only" limitation. Why? A lot of people keep their PD/ED values at the same level, and I'm inclined to think that it probably would be easier to simply define DEF that way and then handle the exceptions of when physical defenses are different from energy defenses. The book keeping is a notch simpler for a lot of characters.

Actually, very, very few of my characters have the same PD as ED. A few Bricks do. Usually, it just makes more sense to have them different: big burly fellow is still not as well defended against Energy than his energy projecting friends, though he can take a pummeling all day long. I wouldn't especially like this change.

[tiger]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly
Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?

Yes but it works totally different than before. I had to completely redesign one hero because of the changes

[johnflang]

A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

In our campaign we use Recovery as the stat to base timeline on. It works, we have used it for years and everyone likes. If you have a high recovery or can have your recovery "aided" then it makes the game more interesting than GM discretion.

In a modern day HIghlander campaign we had a immortal on a jog. He crested the hill as a teammate fumbled a role with a fully loaded M60. By the time the dust had cleared our immortals first recovery was 5000 years later. It took a 3 month magic ritual to get his recovery high enough and 3 months of sustaining it to get him concious again. We had a fun doing the research and the ritual.

In conculsion, I would like to see a change to the table and get rid of GM discretion on neg 31 stun.

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by johnflang
A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

Actually, I'd like all negative stun to be GM discretion. Mooks should stay down. Major villains should get a recovery so they can attempt an escape. Heroes and medium importance villains can get recoveries if it's early in the evening.

Keith "Likes to get to bed at a reasonable hour" Curtis

[JmOz]

Originally posted by johnflang
A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

In our campaign we use Recovery as the stat to base timeline on. It works, we have used it for years and everyone likes. If you have a high recovery or can have your recovery "aided" then it makes the game more interesting than GM discretion.

In a modern day HIghlander campaign we had a immortal on a jog. He crested the hill as a teammate fumbled a role with a fully loaded M60. By the time the dust had cleared our immortals first recovery was 5000 years later. It took a 3 month magic ritual to get his recovery high enough and 3 months of sustaining it to get him concious again. We had a fun doing the research and the ritual.

In conculsion, I would like to see a change to the table and get rid of GM discretion on neg 31 stun.

I use two optional (Characters benefit) for recoveries, simply put either as presented or by intervals of there Recovery, so High rec character recover quicker, but really low rec (norms) recover as per the book, most characters in my games range from 6-10, with a high of 35 (don't ask)

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
Keith "Likes to get to bed at a reasonable hour" Curtis Gee, I thought the whole point of RPGs was an excuse to eat junk food and NOT get to bed at a reasonable hour.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by GamePhil
1. Fix the weapon and armor rules so that they're at least sort of balanced.

It's the same as in 4th Edition, but if you're referring to the Limitation values I kind of see your point.



No, they're completely different. Just compare the weapon charts. Str Min rules have gone from formulaic to arbitrary, not that the 4th ed. formula was all that great. And don't even get me started on the useless "real weapon" limitation, which will cause more problems than it solves.




I generally use, and wouldn't mind seeing, a Utility Advantage/Limitation: if it's really useful in this game, it gets an Advantage, if it's not so useful a Limitation. However, if it never exists officially I wouldn't be bothered.

That might work. The problem really is one that all 'universal' systems have, i.e. that a given power simply isn't going to be worth the same from one genre to the next. For the most part Hero powers are costed pretty well, but there are a couple that need to be reevaluated.



Can't agree there. I especially like STR as it is, unless revisions were made system-wide (if they were to, for some reason, eliminate EC's altogether I could see increasing the cost of STR). Dexterity is also frequently argued to be broken, but I have yet to see an argument that applies universally.

This sort of rolls into the power-cost problem I have above. STR is a good deal in Champions campaigns, but in FH it's way too cheap for the stat that defines everyone's damage, as well as figured stats, and (in 5th) how high your defenses are.



What would you suggest? Using an OCV/DCV like system, like Fuzion did? Or something else?

I'm not thinkng of combat here, I'm thinking of reworking the skill rules so that each stat point means something. Suppose INT skills were based on INT or less instead of 9+(INT/5). Characters with INT > 23 are exceedingly rare even in Champions.



What's wrong with the Bleeding rules? Or were you just being terribly British?

The present bleeding system is hard to use. 1st ed FH, frankly, had the best bleeding rules--bleed 1d6NND Does Body for each 5 Body of the wound; a 1 reduces bleeding, a 6 increases it. Don't forget to buy Paramedic skill.

[Fitz]

The main alteration I'd like to see is in the generisization (is that even a word?) of some of the powers. The powers list still, after all this time, betray the origins of the system as a superhero genre game.

I'd conflate Energy Blast, Hand Attack, and the Killing Attacks into a single "Attack" power which could then be narrowed with modifiers like "Ranged" and "Can't add STR to damage".

Similarly, the defensive powers could easily be combined. Armour, Force Field and Force Wall could be simply differentiated by modifiers. After all, what really differentiates a Force Field from Armour?

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by Nelijal
Gee, I thought the whole point of RPGs was an excuse to eat junk food and NOT get to bed at a reasonable hour.

Spoken like someone under the age of 35. :D

Keith "I still eat too much junk food" Curtis

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
Spoken like someone under the age of 35. :D

Keith "I still eat too much junk food" Curtis Just turned 41, but I'm young at heart (and single).

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by Nelijal
Just turned 41, but I'm young at heart (and single). "Heart," in this case, being truly the operative word here.

(This from a man about to turn 42.) :D

[Lord Mhoram]

For me, I wouldn't want to see a redesign, just a fine tuning, as FREd was to the BBB; so no changes to stat costs, figured chars, or power frameworks. Anything so extensive as to force redesign or rebuild of pretty much all characters is a bad thing.

Readjust Damage Shield. I'm sticking with fourth on this one.

Keep the fixed haymaker. Haymaker was a x1.5 attack originally but then so were martial arts, and the cost of MA depended on STR. I felt that when MA went to added damage, Haymaker should have as well.

Adjust Extra DC in Martial Arts to be 5 pts, and affect all HtH damage. Just like an HA bought 0 end.

Keep +/- 1/4's. I like them. Forcing larger looses granularity.

I'd like to see more granularity for skills, but don't honestly see a workable way that can handle stats from 10-60. Maybe the 7 + (Cha/3) thing. Dunno. I wouldn't want the base roll for a 10 Cha be much less than a 10, and wouldn't want a 20 to be much more than a 14-15. But doing a roll under Char or 5 + (Cha/2) might work for heroic, once you get into superheroic the number can get silly that way.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Fitz
The main alteration I'd like to see is in the generisization (is that even a word?) of some of the powers. The powers list still, after all this time, betray the origins of the system as a superhero genre game.

I'd conflate Energy Blast, Hand Attack, and the Killing Attacks into a single "Attack" power which could then be narrowed with modifiers like "Ranged" and "Can't add STR to damage".

Similarly, the defensive powers could easily be combined. Armour, Force Field and Force Wall could be simply differentiated by modifiers. After all, what really differentiates a Force Field from Armour? Hey, energy blasts show up in multiple genres.

[Trebuchet]

I'd still prefer Killing Attacks be a +2 Advantage rather than a separate Power. It would allow them to avoid such absurdities as "Ranged Killing Attack; No Range -1/2".

[tiger]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I'd still prefer Killing Attacks be a +2 Advantage rather than a separate Power. It would allow them to avoid such absurdities as "Ranged Killing Attack; No Range -1/2".

this is called a HTH killing attack and shouldn't be allowed any other way

[Agent X]

You can go way too far with reductionism, you know, the ATTACK power that you have to buy advantages on to give it ANY descriptors besides xd6 damage. I like having my powers a little more differentiated than that if only to keep the page length and reading time down on character sheets.

There are other sins that can be committed though - like Mayfair DC's Bio-energy blast, Lightning, Heat Vision, etc. that seemed like they were arbitrarily chosen to represent a limited number of aspects of ranged attacks.

I like the Hero take on this far more than anything else I have seen.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I'd still prefer Killing Attacks be a +2 Advantage rather than a separate Power. It would allow them to avoid such absurdities as "Ranged Killing Attack; No Range -1/2".

No way! It'd be far too easy to stack advantages on the power and make killing attacks way too lethal.

For example, currently adding AP to a 4D6 killing attack would cost 30 pts. If we take your suggestion, a 4D6 killing attack would still have 60 active points, but adding AP would only cost 10 points!

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I'd still prefer Killing Attacks be a +2 Advantage rather than a separate Power. It would allow them to avoid such absurdities as "Ranged Killing Attack; No Range -1/2".
How so, unless you're just referring to the name? EB, Killing (+2), No Range (-1/2).


Originally posted by tiger
this is called a HTH killing attack and shouldn't be allowed any other way
Which you then apply the Does Not Add STR Limitation, a -1/2 value. OK, that seems fair.


Originally posted by Agent X
I like having my powers a little more differentiated than that if only to keep the page length and reading time down on character sheets.
This doesn't have to be a problem: you don't write on the character sheet Attack, Ranged, Spreadable, No STR Add, and so on. You build the Energy Blast Power as Attack, Ranged, Spreadable, No STR Add, and then just write down EB on your character sheet.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Gary
No way! It'd be far too easy to stack advantages on the power and make killing attacks way too lethal.

That, too. Really, since the average damage of a 1d6 Killing Attack is close to that of a 3d6 EB, it has to increase the base cost to be in line with other powers.

Not only that, but if creating the Power from scratch it should also be Versus Limited Defense (common defense) and have some Advantage (or possibly Limited Extra Dice) for the occasional shots with x5 Stun Multiples, and the whole thing needs a (small) Limitation for those x1 Stun Multiples...

Hey, I said I'd like to see such rules, I never said that it would be easy.

[JmOz]

To side rail this, I would like digging split into two seperate aspects to one power, speed and Str, (speed=2pts, Str=3 pts)

Why? So I can create the Sand Schrew (Diggin 10" Def 5)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by JmOz
[B]To side rail this, I would like digging split into two seperate aspects to one power, speed and Str, (speed=2pts, Str=3 pts)

I was actually surprised that wasn't there. Ah, well, no fast digging for you...

[Lord Liaden]

Concidentally, I posted a question about why you can't do this very thing to Steve today on the "Rules Questions" forum. Here's his reply:

The main reason would be that the rules make no provision for that sort of thing; they're pretty explicit about tying the velocity and "strength" of Tunneling together. However, the GM could certainly allow it if he wanted to. That might be particularly appropriate in, for example, an FH campaign that takes place entirely in an underground realm.

[Kartoffel]

Nanobot ink with capable of seeking and retrieving the segments of the book and/or posted updates to the book for any given circumstances.
Telepathic UI would be nice too.

[Thirdbase]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade
Actually I have several potential candidates for reform, some of which Steve has already addressed in either the FAQ or a HEROglyphs article (in Digital Hero).

However, the only one I'm really adamant about is Telekinesis. When I saw in 4th Edition that the cost had been raised, I was crushed, because I could no longer make one of my favorite characters viable in a game with Active Point limits.

My fix for Telekinesis is to 1) return the cost to the earlier 1 point for 1 STR, and 2) completely remove the Punch/Squeeze aspect of the Power. That should never have been introduced in the first place, or at most should have been a Power Advantage. It's a violation of Meta-Rule #5, "One Power should not be used to do what another already does." Currently, for 60 points I can lift and move things with 40 STR, and I can also do 8d6 of damage -- but isn't doing Normal damage at range the function of Energy Blast?

Then again, if my superheroes have a limit of 60 Active Points for their Powers, that 8d6 is going to be a bit wimpy, so I'd better buy a real Energy Blast at 12d6 -- except that I can still do 8d6 damage with Telekinesis. But why would I want to, if I can do 12d6 with Energy Blast?

I could go on and on about this, but I think you all get the basic idea.

I have serious problems with TK also, and PK too.


Here are parts of two characters (assume all other characteristics, skills, powers are the same).


DEX 20 30 pts OCV/DCV 7
EGO 10 0 pts ECV 3
SPD 4 10 pts
Telekinesis 40 STR 60 pts

Total pts 115


DEX 10 0 pts OCV/DCV 3
EGO 20 20 pts ECV 7
SPD 4 20 pts
Psychokinesis 13 STR +1 BoECV, +1 Does Body 60 pts (see pg 162 FREd)
[Psychokinesis 15 STR +3/4 BoECV, +1 Does Body 74 pts (see pg 162 FREd)]

Total pts 115[114]

In both cases the defender uses his DCV (pg 147 FREd)
The second Psychokinetic has range penalties lim on Telekinesis
What is wrong or right with this?

This means that your 60 Active Point character can do either 2.5d6 or 3d6 or 4d6 as an EB

Those two characters have the same chances to hit, but the second would have trouble hurting anyone.

[Nelijal]

Wow, there have been some impressive discussions on this thread. HERO certainly has a very dedicated (committed?) fan base.

Just so Steve and the other authors don't think I was being unappreciative by starting this thread with FREd not even a year old (I don't live far from Steve, and I don't want to get beat up :(), I started it as a joke, just to see what kind of input I would get. I certainly don't expect to see SHREd on bookshelves any time soon; Steve's too busy working on our FH stuff. ;)

I underestimated the rabid passion of Herophiles.

The thread has been very interesting to read, and turned out to be very informative. You guys are much smarter than I am.

[Steve Long]

Don't worry, Nelijal, no offense taken. 6E is many, many years away, so it's not like I'll remember any of this, but it's interesting to see what people are thinking at this particular moment in time, almost 1 year exactly after 5E's release. ;)

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Steve Long
Don't worry, Nelijal, no offense taken. 6E is many, many years away, so it's not like I'll remember any of this, but it's interesting to see what people are thinking at this particular moment in time, almost 1 year exactly after 5E's release. ;)

So steve, what would you have done differently knowing what you know now?

[Roland]

Reduce the cost of Combat Sense to a more reasonable level and better define the circumstances when it can be used.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by JmOz
So steve, what would you have done differently knowing what you know now?

Not make joking suggestions for nicknames for his books? ;)

C'mon, JmOz, you don't really expect a lawyer to answer a question that controversial in print, do you? :rolleyes:

[Thirdbase]

Originally posted by Nelijal
Wow, there have been some impressive discussions on this thread. HERO certainly has a very dedicated (committed?) fan base.

No HERO has a fan base that needs to be committed.:D

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
Not make joking suggestions for nicknames for his books? ;)

C'mon, JmOz, you don't really expect a lawyer to answer a question that controversial in print, do you? :rolleyes:

Not really. but I was hoping he would admit to screwing up Damage Shield (The continous thing is wrong, makes it at its most basic level wrong, note he even knows it, thus why he uses the KHA power instead, so he can side step and add a additional -1/2 lim)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by JmOz
Not really. but I was hoping he would admit to screwing up Damage Shield (The continous thing is wrong, makes it at its most basic level wrong, note he even knows it, thus why he uses the KHA power instead, so he can side step and add a additional -1/2 lim)
Actually, he did the exact same thing in 4th Edition, when the Advantage was more to your liking, so that does not constitute proof that he even agrees with your sentiment.

[BobGreenwade]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Actually, he did the exact same thing in 4th Edition, when the Advantage was more to your liking, so that does not constitute proof that he even agrees with your sentiment. As a point of clarification, Fourth Edition was the work of McDonald, Petersen, and Bell. It had already been in print for quite some time when Steve's first gaming book, Dark Champions, was published.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by BobGreenwade
As a point of clarification, Fourth Edition was the work of McDonald, Petersen, and Bell. It had already been in print for quite some time when Steve's first gaming book, Dark Champions, was published.
To further clarify: I meant that Steve did this under the Fourth Edition rules, not that he wrote Fourth Edition. There was a character covered with spikes in one of the Dark Champions line that had it purchased like this, I keep thinking Scarecrow? That's not right, but I can't dredge up the right name.

[keithcurtis]

What's the prob? If you don't like Damage Shield as written, house rule it. Does ANYBODY use the rules exactly as written? In any system?

Keith "my house, my rules" Curtis

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
What's the prob? If you don't like Damage Shield as written, house rule it. Does ANYBODY use the rules exactly as written? In any system?

Keith "my house, my rules" Curtis
Unfortunately, if it's not your house, it's somebody else's rules, so not a few people want the book done to support their views of how the rules should be. This is an understandable reaction, if not a totally rational one.

[Tom Carman]

New attack roll:

Add 10 to DCV, and convert the attack roll to 3d6 + OCV = DCV hit. Of course, you could leave DCV alone and put "- 10" into the equation, but boosting DCV simplifies things.

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
Does ANYBODY use the rules exactly as written? In any system?

BLASPHEMY! Kill the Infidel!

I follow every rule, no matter how stupid or damaging to the enjoyment of the game. I even blindly followed the jumping distance rules in 2nd edition D&D's Dungeoneers Survival Guide: distance was based on class and level, not any of those silly, meaningless characteristics! "You think a strong, fast 1st level fighter can out jump a 20th level Cleric with an 8 strength? Are you crazy?!?"

And I never speed either. :D

[Supreme]

The main thing I'd like to see would be fewer side-bars and better organization. I think 95% of all the stuff in the side-bars and in the option sections of all the powers should be shunted into later chapters, or genre books. It would just make things less visually busy and easier to deal with. I also think this would make the game friendlier to new players. I've tried to rope in new players who take one look at the book and say "no thanks."

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
What's the prob? If you don't like Damage Shield as written, house rule it. Does ANYBODY use the rules exactly as written? In any system?

Keith "my house, my rules" Curtis

And now, for the rule-geek rebuttal :D

Said it before, will say it again: the GM's veto right and ability to house rule is not and never will be an excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

As others noted, house rules only work within the "house". This is a huge problem for, to use a non-HERO example, 3rd Edition DnD's psionic "rules" -- that have a number of hideous flaws. Since WotC/TSR has been slow to correct them, everyone that wants to use them has been forced to choose between either house ruling them half to death, rewriting the entire system, or using them only in a limited format if at all.

The result right now is that you can't have any rule or creation discussion (new feats, new powers, etc.) on the psionic rule boards without it diverging into a series of discussions about everyone's house rules.

THAT'S why, in my opinion, the "just house rule it" defense holds no weight to speak of.

Respectfully,
The "All in the Name of Fun and Meaningful Debate" Emerged

[Peregrine]

Originally posted by Tom Carman
New attack roll:

Add 10 to DCV, and convert the attack roll to 3d6 + OCV = DCV hit. Of course, you could leave DCV alone and put "- 10" into the equation, but boosting DCV simplifies things.

That sounds suspiciously like d20...

BURN THE HERETIC!!!

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by TheEmerged

Said it before, will say it again: the GM's veto right and ability to house rule is not and never will be an excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

I tend to agree here, however, there is one huge glaring omission.

One mans flaw is another man's correction.

There have been seen on these very boards more than a pittance of people for whom the current DS rule on continuous is "correct" in their eyes. its a correction of earlier problems. They seem to find it proper from their view of how the HERo math-model is supposed to work.

For the record, i disagree with them.


Originally posted by TheEmerged

As others noted, house rules only work within the "house".

Snipping the off topic, but apparently obligatory, DND bashing (as if there isn't enough in HERO5 to use it as an example, like ohh sayyy DAMAGE SHIELD which has more house rules posted to this board than i can count)...

House rules staying within their house is not a bad thing. After all, the purpose of house rules is to make the rule set manufactured for "mass market" work more to the particular tastes and preferences os a given GM and his specific campaign and specific players.



Originally posted by TheEmerged

The result right now is that you can't have any rule or creation discussion (new feats, new powers, etc.) on the psionic rule boards without it diverging into a series of discussions about everyone's house rules.

So, what are you saying? That rules should be written to make discussion boards topics stay on topic?

Originally posted by TheEmerged

THAT'S why, in my opinion, the "just house rule it" defense holds no weight to speak of.

I really could care less whether any discussion board's rules discussion stay on topic when it comes to what i want my rules to be.

I would rather HERO rules work for their genre, which of course gets ugly when genre is not something the hero rules acknowledge.

For the record i would have rather seen a DS that works for supers, and by "works" i mean not that it blindly follows a mathematical process but that the final results pass the "am i getting what i pay for" test. As it stands, it seems we have a DS that will only work out to "worth what you pay for" when it is heroified by using oddball advantages and attacks (or even non-attacks with clever spins) so that the "abusive" problems from 4th are now the norm... and simple notions for simple folks who want to play "like the comics" as in "my human torch is surrounded by fire" should NOT use damage shield as their component for building this effect cuz they will pay "more than its worth."

This would have entailed making DS a relatively low cost multiplier or even a no-point choice for normal attacks and give it plenty of penalty value adders for the oddball attacks along the lines of autofire.

Its an easy house rule...

But they did not write a DS for me and my preferences. The math nodel guys seem happy with it. Maybe they wrote it for them? They did not write damage shield for supers? Maybe they wrote it for westerns or cyber or ninja or fantasy or a lot of those other genres i don't use hero for. Maybe it works for them.

Since i only need a ds for supers and i know how much its worth in my games... i can house rule it.

[Lord Liaden]

Almost everyone who posts here disagrees with the costing of the current Damage Shield, even if they agree with the conceptual model in principle (I include myself in that group), but I've rarely seen two of the critics agree about how to correct it.

In the case of most other rules changes - Multiple Power attacks, cost of Aid, damage from Haymakers, whatever - I've seen just as many people claim they love them as hate them. That's why most of these proposed "fixes" will remain within the realm of houserules; concensus is practically impossible. It's also why we need one informed person to make decisions about the "official" rules. For the most part, I think that Steve Long has made very good decisions. I disagree with some of them, but I don't expect Steve to change his rulings based on my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think a forum like this thread is a great place to raise issues and exchange ideas. Something one of us suggests might be just what another reader may be looking for to adjust his own game more to his liking. And who knows, whoever ends up writing 6th Edition might pick up some of the ideas expressed this way and make them official.

But for now, house rules are the only practical alternative for someone who doesn't like the official way of doing something.

[TheEmerged]

RE: DnD "Bashing". Not hardly. Go to the DnD official boards, especially the Psionic board. Yep, I'm the same TheEmerged. Perhaps I was wrong to believe that using a "neutral" example would allow for some perspective.

RE: On Topic. Hmm, must've been a bad post on my part. I could care less about board posts staying on topic; I'm quite bad for derailing myself.

What I was saying was that in an environment when "House Rule It!" is the response to a broken rule, you lose the "yardstick" standard. Take my own house rules for DnD Psionics, for example -- definitely from the "rewrite it" school of thought, as I've rewritten nearly 1/3rd of the powers in the PsiHB, come up with an entirely different mechanic for psionic combat (translation: changed psionic combat to a slight variant of physical combat), changed multiple feats... As a result of those changes, I ended up having to give psions an almost completely different mechanic for determining Powers Known.

The result? Whereas I used to be an almost constant presence on the Psionics board, these days I can barely contribute at all without spending three paragraphs explaining myself. This is also true for several other people on the board, many of whom don't show up at all now (in fairness, Psi&Co got banned for being an idiot and Strutian seems to appear only to hawk his own wares).

Am I house-ruling Damage Shield for my own campaigns? Of course. That's not a solution, however: it is only a stopgap.

[ShadowRaptor]

two questions:
do we need SHREd? FREd just came out.
can't we all just get along and be nice to each other? :D :D

[Mutant for Hire]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor
two questions:
do we need SHREd? FREd just came out.
can't we all just get along and be nice to each other? :D :D

1. We're years away from SHRed. This is just free-ranging speculation about what we'd like to see in a next edition game.

2. Of course not. :)

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by ShadowRaptor
two questions:
do we need SHREd? FREd just came out.
can't we all just get along and be nice to each other? :D :D
Well, Fifth Edition was discussed much like this for years before it was actually written (and several more before it saw print), so we're just getting a head start.

And, while we certainly can't be nice to each other, I thought this was a fairly polite thread.

[Arthur]

Boy am I late getting into this one:

HERO 6

(1) Change the cost of STR to x2. This is probably the most glaring flaw in the system. I've seen too many Champions games where every single character had STR 25+. And the problem is twice as bad in Heroic games! If you don't go with a STR of at least 18, you are voluntarily hobbling your character. Some dedicated roleplayers will do that, but why should they have to?

(2) Do something to address the END/REC problem in low-point games. In a low-point game, SPD tends to be lower. At a low SPD, the END and REC system breaks down: it's not unusual at all for characters to be tireless. Two possible fixes:

A. In Heroic games (or all games), go back to the original paradigm of 1 END per 5 AP. This works out nicely in that 1d N = 1 END.

B. Increase base SPD by 2 in Heroic level games. Change the scale such that 1" = 1 meter.

C. Increase base SPD by 1 in Heroic games. You wouldn't need to mess with the scale. It would make characters a little faster than what is realistic, but not so much as to be absurd.


(3) Define the system that relates KE to damage and stick to it. In 4E, an analysis of firearms showed that you could equate 50 J at 1 DC, with a each doubling of KE being a +1 DC. Put a stop this new notion of picking values out of the air. A lot of us like to game-stat out real-world weapons - arbitrary values make that difficult and inconsistent.

(4) Reinstate the +1 OCV for swords.

(5) Eliminate "absolute" Powers Invisibility and Desolidification. Replace them with graduated effects: Obscure and Density Decrease (or whatever). Each level of Obscure would be a penalty to detections; each level of Density Decrease would allow you to ignore 1 BODY worth of attacks and 1 DEF worth of objects. Or something to that effect.

(6) Make Regen consistent with Healing. Set a default value of "once per day" and charge a +1/4 Advantage for each step up on the Time Chart. For instance, Regen at once per Turn would have to be built with a "Reset Time" of 1 Turn for a +1.5 Advantage. Makes Regen expensive, but it's worth it. That also makes the slower Regen times more appealing: many character concepts call for healing on the order of 1 BODY per hour.

(7) Use Skill Defaults a la GURPS.

(8) Reduce the costs of Immunity to Poison and Disease to 5 points each - tops. How often are characters exposed to disease? I could see 3 for all diseases and 5 for all poisons.

(9) Here's an easy one: Damage Shield! The old way at +1/2 was fine.

(10) Keep Haymaker just the way it is in FRED! That was a House Rule of mine for years before that, anyway. Puts it in line with every other martial maneuver.

(11) Write up a list of 0-point maneuvers using UMA and make them optional maneuvers anyone can use. For instance, anyone can make an "all-out attack" at +2 OCV and -2 DCV.

[AaronD]

Originally posted by Tom Carman
New attack roll:

Add 10 to DCV, and convert the attack roll to 3d6 + OCV = DCV hit. Of course, you could leave DCV alone and put "- 10" into the equation, but boosting DCV simplifies things.

I've played this way for years. Plus I change skills to bonuses and roll 3d6+bonus to beat a target number. This makes much more sense as well as greatly simplifying skill versus skill tests. All without changing probabilities one bit.


Aaron

[Old Man]

I wouldn't minds seeing an overall scale change wrt stats. One of the big problems with running a heroic level game right now is the extreme granularity. If 'normal' stats were set to around 20 average that would increase the resolution a lot. Of course there are a lot of ramifications to making that 'simple' change.

The skill system also needs to be revamped such that each point of relevant stat matters. That way an INT of 14 matters more than an INT of 13 when making a deduction roll.

And I still think STR needs to cost 2/pt, for heroic level games if not superheroic.

[Fitz]

I think something I'd like to see is a change from measuring ranges and everything in inches and change the measurments all to metres -- Fear not, metrically-challenged folks: a metre is close enough to a yard for game purposes, so in-your-head conversions on the fly should be easy enough :)

That would have the big advantage of making in-game descriptions directly relevant to real-world units. It would also allow the use of variable hex sizes when playing with a battlemat. For example, if you were playing a wide-open battlefield scenario, you could use a "BigHex™" battlemat and define the hex size as 10m (I realise I could do that anyway, defining the hexes as 5", but it just feels easier to do it with metres directly - less brain-hurting conversion necessary).

[gewing]

1st:
Strength should cost 2 points/ point. This would simplify many things, and allow simplification in particular on HA.

Fix Regen.

Current Shapeshift bothers me. I feel it went from too cheap to too expensive. NOt sure how it would be better.

Re-write weapon tables. Pole arms were not useless for small people. >45 ACP is not more powerful than .41 Magnum. :) I know, I'm a nut.

Make rounding always work after addition.

[gewing]

Hear Hear! all advantages etc should be alphabetically listed in the same section.




Originally posted by Harry Canyon
This is like the structure of so many things. But UI/Workflow design for software comes to mind.

Frequently, if someone finds a really good UI/Workflow in a program, it's because the design follows how that person "thinks". They want tool x and, lo and behold, it's right there were they expect it.

With a poor UI/Workflow, occasionally it's just designed by people with a different workflow, so it seems bad. Even though there are plenty of people who like that particular design. (Although it certainly could just suck by all standards! ;) )

Several have mentioned some good things, for one a Damage Shield does seem a bit pricey to me. <shrug> But I think they've managed to be very internally consistent with most things.

First, I've yet to finish the entire Black Tome of Goodness. :) With that said, what I'd like to see in a future version is quite frankly, better organization. What? You ask? How can that be?

Initially I was quite impressed. Quick rundown of the different types of powers, then on to the detailed descriptions of the powers themselves. Okay. So far so good. I finished the powers section and decided to create my first villian. (I'm a long time Hero player, so I figured I'd just look up the details as needed.) So I'm merrily jotting down powers and advantages/limitations and need to see their values. I look in the appropriate section. Strange... It's not there. On to the index! <flip, flip> Oh, there it is. What's it doing there? Why are some advantages and limitations only listed within power descriptions or power examples, instead of in the logical sections titled "Advantages" and "Limitations"? Certainly some arguement could be made that those powers are the ones they are most commonly used with. But how does that help the reader find them easily? I can also see arguement for not repeating them to save space. This is certainly valid and allows for more data in the book, but it doesn't help the "workflow" IMO.

Then again maybe "they" just "think differently" than I do. ;)

So, uhh... that's what I'd like... So far... :)

Take care,

Harry

[gewing]

We kept it based on Recovery also.


Originally posted by johnflang
A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

In our campaign we use Recovery as the stat to base timeline on. It works, we have used it for years and everyone likes. If you have a high recovery or can have your recovery "aided" then it makes the game more interesting than GM discretion.

In a modern day HIghlander campaign we had a immortal on a jog. He crested the hill as a teammate fumbled a role with a fully loaded M60. By the time the dust had cleared our immortals first recovery was 5000 years later. It took a 3 month magic ritual to get his recovery high enough and 3 months of sustaining it to get him concious again. We had a fun doing the research and the ritual.

In conculsion, I would like to see a change to the table and get rid of GM discretion on neg 31 stun.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by gewing
Hear Hear! all advantages etc should be alphabetically listed in the same section.

I certainly agree that this would be very helpful, especially for new HERO players. If you're new you don't necessarily know what everything is called, and if you don't remember its name the index, thorough as it is, may not help you find it. Even I, who's been picking up Hero Games products since 1983, have been thrown a couple of times trying to find something the name of which has been changed in 5E.

For those who are unaware of it, there's a PDF file available on the "Free Stuff" page with all the Power Modifiers from FREd and several other books listed in alphabetical order, with page numbers to the appropriate books. If the pertinent part of that listing could be included in a few extra pages of a revised version of FREd, I think it would make the rulebook more accessible to newbies.

[Mutant for Hire]

1. Power construction needs to be redefined. Players should construct powers from the ground up, specifying an effect and then purchasing range, duration, targetting, area of effect and a list of other features as well.

2. Figured characteristics need to go, with possible characteristic cost modifications in the process.

3. Switching from inches to meters is a good idea and will make things less confusing for incoming players.

4. See my COM thread for what I'd like to see done with COM

5. Regeneration and Healing both need fixing. Regen needs to be REC moved up the time chart and Healing needs that X per day limitation removed and made GM fiat

6. Elemental Controls need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Thematic limitations are too vague and too much subject to debate. Eliminate the need for thematic unity and merely make it a pool of powers that get a discount for being linked together for being affected by Adjustment powers.

[Sketchpad]

I'm quite happy with FREd :) I'd prefer a game to age a bit before any new editions come out ... unlike some other games where the new editions seem to come out every year.

[Tech]

Originally posted by Sketchpad
I'm quite happy with FREd :) I'd prefer a game to age a bit before any new editions come out ... unlike some other games where the new editions seem to come out every year.

I think I'd also like to see it age a bit. I've read the posts. I like alot of them and I don't like alot of them, I agree and I disagree. Regardless, I think besides Steve looking at this, this'll probably go the way of all the other posts: It'll disappear eventually.