A Mind in Crisis (Rant Warning…)

[Ndreare]

I have a problem every time I want to shoe someone the hero system the first thing they want to do is recreate either D&D or Ultima characters. This seems so narrow minded it is killing me.

They want to make a wizard so I say sure go ahead lets talk about what you think or want a wizard to do…

Next thing I know it came down too, their idea of a wizard is a friggen conversion of some other systems wizard. Now on this alone I am fine but low and behold when they discover something in the game that does not fit their former style or desire it becomes “What the he** a man in chain mail can Control The Wind?” then I try to explain to them the whole the “Only limitations are the ones you want” thing.

Then comes the endless discussion of how a wizard is this or a fighter is that. (It kills me.) I do not force restrictive character classes usually (actually it is quite rare as I use a general rule of X type thing). But then when I do it is like this whole paradigm conflict anyways.

Even references to characters like the Sword wielding Gandalf from the LOTR books or Jerald Tarrant from the Cold Fire Trilogy get the well those are exceptions. Another fighter example would be Daemon Vrice from the Cold Fire Trilogy or many of the characters from the Amber series.


So what I want to know is do you or your players often put limitations on others or characters based on older game design?

[cutsleeve]

The kind of mindset you describe is not absolutely due to D&D it has more to do with game systems and the players familiarity with them.

If a player has only played D&D they would be prepared to play a game like ars magica where wizards are enormously powerful. If they play V:TM exclusively and you send them into D&D and they get bitten by a vampire they will give you the same disgruntled arguement about what their abilities should be and theyre suseptabilities.

The vast majority of gamers play one system and thats pretty much it. they dont play other systems because they feel its cumbersome to learn new rules or that the new system they learn is somehow flawed in comparison with the more familiar system. It just bias which is created from playing only one particular game or only a particular type of game or system. Its only through sampling other systems that you can finally see the flaws in any given system. Even Hero system has flaws but it does a good job of being a universal system.

theres not much you can do about players who cant adapt to other systems. They will either accept the system or not.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've ranted similarly in the past.

My advice: Let 'em play what they want. Introduce NPCs who tweak the stereotypes. Let their arrows tink off the evil wizard's hidden breastplate. Let the warrior-rogue toss off a spell. Watch them gape when the evil priest throws a fireball or has a hidden crossbow under the altar.

When they call you on it, as they inevitably will, respond with "Oh, that's allowed in this game world."

[Alibear]

Originally posted by cutsleeve
Even Hero system has flaws

Burn the heretic!:p

[Captain Obvious]

I'm guessing the guys you play with only read R.A. Salvatore or other authors who primarily write about D&D worlds. Otherwise they'd see that characters that follow strict class lines are the exception and not the rule.

The Grey Mouser is a cat burglar, a duellist, and a magician (albeit this last skill area has been largely neglected). Anra Devadoris was as good a duellist as the Mouser, and a better wizard by far. How many guys did Conan (himself a burglar/pirate/bandit/soldier/king) fight who wielded a sword and magic with equal skill?

For that matter, how many pure wizards follow D&D lines? Some seem to only have a few spells, but at powerful levels. Some have a wide range of minor effects. How does this fit with D&D's "X spells per level per day" scheme?

Get them into some classics of fantasy and have them create those characters in D&D. Once they see they can't do it, or can only do it with a lot of hand-waving and force-fitting, show them the exact character in Hero terms. If they're not more willing to play after that, they are married to the idea of D&D as the ultimate fantasy game and will never leave it.

[Hierax]

Ndreare,

I can sympathize with your problem. Some people have a real problem with change from what they've always done and seeing the benefits of a more flexible system.

It might be helpful to frame things for them in terms of xD&D. Please bear with me as I explain. Put these players in a situation where they are limited to the way things used to be with D&D and show them all the things that D&D can now do that it couldn't do before and you'll get them to agree that the more options offered are better, then take them to the next step and show them the things that HERO can do that D&D can't.

E.G., in old D&D a fighter was a fighter and didn't really have any special powers, there were no Paladins, Cavaliers, Barbarians, no non-weapon proficiencies, no feats, no prestige classes, etc. but if people were happy with just this total basic fighter then they would have rejected all of the options -- I'd expect that your players wouldn't want to play D&D without having access to all of the cool options that were evolved over the years. Show them how HERO really is just an extension of how xD&D has been evolving all these years, but that they don't have to wait for official designers to give them more options that they can make the evolution themselves in exactly the way that they want.

Mind you if they just want to play a plain old d8 hp fighter who has no special abilities and don't appreciate any of the advances then there might not be any hope for them with HERO.

I'm not putting this very well but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at -- they don't understand HERO (because it is new), so show them something that they (presumably) do understand (D&D) and show how HERO has all the things that they like about D&D but only more so and maybe that will bring them around, it might take time but maybe this will put them on the path to seeing the true light...

[Hierax]

In terms of Wizards (or Magic-users), you could limit Magic-users to the spells of the old 'white box' D&D and not let them cast any of the spells after that or allow for any specialist wizards, metamagic feats, etc. and see how they like it when they lose all of the neat stuff that D&D Wizards have gained over the years. Then show them all the great stuff the can have their wizards do in HERO -- e.g., Fireball with Personal Immunity or Selective Targets in the Area of Effect are something that I've heard numerous people ask for in xD&D even though they didn't know the terms for it.

[tesuji]

Actually, while people keep talking about flexible "systems" this is actually a world definition thing.

Wizards cannot wear armor and only clerics can heal and rogues dont learn greatswords often is a small set of world defining aspects. They show the players how things work in the world. Your players are naturally falling back on the "fantasy worlds" they have the most experience with and its probably for a very simple reason.

"you do not seem to have defined your game world and its limits for them. The entire notion of "Only limitations are the ones you want " is practically anti-defining.

For example... if they want to play a toddler "normal human" who is as smart of the worlds smartest sage and has strength of 8 men, would you go sure? if they wanted to play a "normal human" who had six arms and a tail, would that be OK? Or are you going to stop and say "well that doesn't make sense?"

At the point that you stop them and say "that doesn't make sense?" you have just admitted "well there are some limitations... i just haven't told you about them."

Can your player choose a strength based skill for his magic skill roll? This way he can be a fighter mage and not have to fret with watsing points boosting int or ego.

******************************

It boils down to something very simple... if you, the gm, had given your players a guide to "how things work in this fantasy world" they would know these things and try to play within your world as it makes sense and is explained. lacking a world definition, lacking a sense of things, and lacking any instructions as to what should be expected as normal... people are going to fill in the blanks with what is comfortable.

Should they expect normal squirrels to rush at them wielding two handed swords? Should this be seen in your world as just another hazard for those who do not drop adequate nutly offerings to the squirrel god?

[Captain Obvious]

Good points, Tesuji.

I would suggest, Ndreare, that you choose a literary world that your players are familiar with, preferably one that exhibits some feature that D&D doesn't model well, and go with that. This will let them know what sorts of characters are common in this world and what is virtually unknown. In particular point out explicitly what they can do that they can't do in D&D, and what they can't do that they could in D&D (and how that presumably makes for a more rewarding game experience...I personally would rather barely survive in a more realistic setting against two opponents than wade into a sea of "low-level" opponents and come out with nary a scratch).

[Ndreare]

For the Record


I told the players that we would be adventuring in the world presented in the “Cold Fire Trilogy” starting about 100 years before “Black Sun Rising”.

So their was set of limitation and genre however this is something that I often run into is the magic must be this way or fighters are that way. (I did warn it was a rant after all.)

P.S.: if you have read the cold fire trilogy you know the entire idea behind a character class is missing in these stories some thing I like very much.

They have little areas were they talk about adepts and priest but it is nothing like a character class as an Adept can wield a sword as well as any man or even a casual person may be able to try a spell or to.

[xanatos]

If I have to tell the truth, in fantasy campaigns I quite often use the limitation that each "type" of mage has "limited" schools (and I simulate this by telling my players that they can use only half the AP on spells of that school), so Wizards can heal very little and Clerics can damage very little. This leaves the "feel" of DnD (and probably of many other books where magical healing is not a common commodity). For the GreatSword Thief, well, with 3rd ed. you can (just a feat or a level of Fighter)... and you can even have a mage with full plate (you will need to still his spells to cast them without problem, and you will need a feat or a level of another class)

[Citizen Keen]

While tesuji has solid points, there is something I might want to add...

Explain to your players that the "wizards can't wield swords" and "clerics can only use blunt objects" and all that is a form of game balance.

HERO's game balance is done by points.

Can a wizard wield a sword? Yes.

Can a cleric use a sword? Yes.

Can a rogue cast spells? Yes.

Can a fighter leap fifty feet in the air? Yes.

But...

Can you build a versatile arcane/divine spellcaster with stealth skills and weapon skills and elf abilities and dwarf abilities and the ability to fly? Not all at once.

Some thing I always tell my players is...

In HERO, you can do anything, but not everything.

-cK

[Ndreare]

Originally posted by Citizen Keen
In HERO, you can do anything, but not everything.

-cK

I like this you can expect that sone I will be using it.

[Melchior777]

It seems to me that most of the people so far have mentioned what you can and can't do "in combat." In this context you are limiting the Hero systems effectiveness by comparing it to what D&D does best. D&D is a combat system with a few extras added, plain and simple. Hero is much, much more. You can simulate more situations with Hero, and with much greater detail. You actually have statistics and rules for handling social, political, and other types of situations that don't fall under the realm of combat. This is the strength of Hero, to be able to deal with almost any situation. As for your players, I wouldn't blame them to much. Players tend to want things a certain way. Either they want to play one system because that's the system they have all the books for and don't want to spend the money to buy new ones, or they've learned how to tweek characters in this system and don't want to get used to a new one. I've found the impact of Hero's extensive rules can be softened by the GM not just handing the players the rule book and saying "make a character." In D&D, this is perfectly feasable. In D20 (3ed) the rules are so cut and dried that it is difficult to even introduce house rules to the system. Anyway, as to your predicament: Hero converts very easily to D&D and vice versa. All you need do is create some NPC's, bases, monsters, etc. that will take you players by surprise. (What do you mean, "The dragon fascinates you, you can't act on your next turn?" or "Um... I don't have the Knowledge skill, Courtier. Can't I just roll Diplomancy?") Show them the depth of the characters created using Hero. If that's what they want, they'll come around. If they want to continue playing role playing games like they were computer games, well that's up to them.

[Lucius]

Believe it or not - I'm actually going to say something in defense of D&D.

I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "a combat system with some extras added." Even in my day (and I know it has evolved since I played it) I don't think that was quite true. Or if it is fair, it is also fair to say the same about Hero. Lots of RPGs seem to overemphasize the combat aspect of things.
At most, I'd say the statement is "more true" of D&D than of Hero - but I'm not sure everyone would even agree with that.

As for the rant that started this - I have a question. I know the players were told that the gameworld was based on a particular set of books - are they in fact familiar with those books? If not, perhaps more explanation is needed, and it is understandable, as Tesuji says, if they "fall back" on what they are familiar with. If they DO know the books, and basically didn't believe you when you said "this is how the world works," then I'm not sure what to say...

Disclaimer - I have not played D&D for a long time, so what I'm about to say may no longer be valid. However, based on this rant, I suspect it's still a valid point.

D&D, unlike Hero, builds world defining elements right into the rules. "Clerics may not use edged weapons" was the RULE, and imposed regardless of religion, culture, or game world - it was an assumed part of how ANY D&D world worked. Someone who has played Hero for a while, even if only in fantasy campaigns, is going to be exposed to a variety of "models" just as someone who reads fantasy literature is. Someone who has played a lot of D&D has seen the SAME basic assumptions about numerous things reinforced repeatedly, perhaps even in game worlds where such assumptions made little sense, certainly when they had no intrinsic reason to be there. These assumptions can become so ingrained that I can well believe that the players in this example knew the books the game world was based on, clearly heard the Game Operations Director explicitly state that THAT was the basis, and nonetheless they never even questioned that the arbitrary assumptions of D&D would still apply.

Now, the last time I spent much time with D&D, was about the time Dark Sun came out, I think. That was a world with a LOT of different assumptions from the "standard" D&D rules. So even based on my outdated experience (clue: I still think of the Drow as "those newfangled dark elves") it is an exaggeration to say D&D is absolutely inflexible. If the players have had some experience with such "variants" they may find it more comprehensible that yes, a wizard could use a sword, and yes, a priest with a vow of ahimsa can't use ANY weapons edged or not, and it is not only possible but probably advisable for a warrior to learn stealth and concealment.

I'm running on again. But I'll add this. Next time a player starts to define a character purely in terms of some other game systems stereotyped "character class" stop them and ask "why?" Also ask "Do you want to....?"

"Why do you want to only be able to cast each spell once a day?"
"Well....isn't that how magic works?"
"Not necessarily."

"Do you want your priestess of Artemis to have tracking, survival, and a level with bows, since She is a Goddess of the hunt as well as of the moon?"
"Bows? But a cleric can't use bows."
"Sure she can, if you pay the points for it."

"Why don't you equip him with a shield? He uses a one handed sword and putting a shield on the other hand could be useful."
"Because he's a thief."
"So? Maybe he stole somebody's shield and learned to use it."

In other words, LET THEM KNOW WHEN THEY ARE GRATUITOUSLY LIMITING THEMSELVES. Raise their consciousness. Don't let their assumptions remain unchallenged and unquestioned. Maybe that's what you did wrong? If you had not said "okay, fine" when they present character concepts based on more restrictive systems, they may still have chosen those characters, but they would consciously KNOW that it was a choice, and that other characters could be different.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary recalls the lines from Lucius' song "Everybody Must Get Stunned."
They'll stun your black belt, lock up all his joints
They'll stun you with their secret pressure points
They'll stun you with their martial arts so strange
They'll stun you with a shotgun at close range
Hey! Where'd that NINJA get a GUN?
EVERYBODY just got stunned.

[RyugaWhiteWolf]

Fortunately, I rarely run into this problem, because the people I game with tend to have played a variety of different games. Admittedly, some of them tend to min/max so would spot the things they could do in one game (such as a wizard wielding a sword in Palladium) that they could not do in another (such as AD&D).


I have to agree with the sentiment of describing AD&D/D&D as "a combat system with some extras added". There are a fair number of game systems (Gurps, Palladium, Shadowrun, etc.) where it is theoretically possible (but maybe extremely difficult) for a character to advance without ever having entered combat once. This is impossible in D&D (definitely impossible in the first two editions, I have not extensively played the third).

What does surprise me (perhaps even disappoint) is that Ndreare's players would not even try to step past D&D's boundaries. I would think one person would like to play a warrior/wizard just once without having to be an elf or half-elf. I know some people hate doing this, but perhaps Ndreare could make some pregenerated characters (with or without short backstory) for his/her players to use. This would give them an introduction to the Hero system while bypassing their inclinatiosn to create characters who fit the "four standard classes".

[Rage]

Originally posted by RyugaWhiteWolf
Fortunately, I rarely run into this problem, because the people I game with tend to have played a variety of different games. Admittedly, some of them tend to min/max so would spot the things they could do in one game (such as a wizard wielding a sword in Palladium) that they could not do in another (such as AD&D).


I have to agree with the sentiment of describing AD&D/D&D as "a combat system with some extras added". There are a fair number of game systems (Gurps, Palladium, Shadowrun, etc.) where it is theoretically possible (but maybe extremely difficult) for a character to advance without ever having entered combat once. This is impossible in D&D (definitely impossible in the first two editions, I have not extensively played the third).

What does surprise me (perhaps even disappoint) is that Ndreare's players would not even try to step past D&D's boundaries. I would think one person would like to play a warrior/wizard just once without having to be an elf or half-elf. I know some people hate doing this, but perhaps Ndreare could make some pregenerated characters (with or without short backstory) for his/her players to use. This would give them an introduction to the Hero system while bypassing their inclinatiosn to create characters who fit the "four standard classes".

it is possible in 3rd, but the thing is with the basic ruleset you can't just say I am a diplomat I don't know what way a sword goes. All my points go into increasing my knowledge and persasion. You still have to buy a class whose character level goes up. so by the time my orator (done with the bard class as it best represents the character.) gets to level 12 from his experience he can butcher in hand to hand combat almost all characters level 8 and below. thats assuming I don't add more points to my dex or con or Str but all straight to my charisma wisdom and Int. its just my damage class goes up as does my hp.

My face to face group plays alot of Dnd. (Pet peeve side rant: I create a new world and my player creates a char, I have told him its not Forgotten Realms, and I have told him what religions exsist. he badgers me into changing one of the gods names into Sigune and when he finds out I haven't changed anything else he gets pissy.)

[tesuji]

Originally posted by RyugaWhiteWolf

There are a fair number of game systems (Gurps, Palladium, Shadowrun, etc.) where it is theoretically possible (but maybe extremely difficult) for a character to advance without ever having entered combat once. This is impossible in D&D (definitely impossible in the first two editions, I have not extensively played the third).


In DND 3e experience and advancement comes from one thing... overcoming the challenges presented.

if your Gm runs a scenario where the challenges are all combat based, where the key to freeing the princess is killing her captors, then thats the way they will advance in that game. If the Gm however scripts the challenge so that other means are possible, even perhaps required, then those become the possibilities.

For example, perhaps her captors are not just mindless fiends but crooks out for loot. then acting as a go between working out the ransom would be an option. Also, if your party is stealthy not brutish, then perhaps sneaking in and stealing her back might be it. Or, if the princess was kidnapped for some other reason, perhaps in retaliation for a kidnapping of the "villain's" son, then finding the son, exposing the root cause may well be the solution and the means of beating the challenge with social or investigative means.

Now, this said, the makers of DND 3e were not morons. They realized something that most people here may secretly admit to when they think no one is around... most oif the time, fantasy stories and legends and films and the like tend to favor stories where fighting the bad guy plays a vital role... and yes, even among the roleplaying purists who wax poeteically about character who NEVER enter combat, have to admit they those characters are rarely the stars, the heroes, the PCS of those stories, films, and legends. So, not being morons, the guys at WOTC did spend a bit more on detailing the challenge system and xp for combat encounters and combat oriented challenges than they did for the non-combat ones... because they figure that would be more frequently the case.

Its not impossible to advance without combat. The nature of the challenge is set by the GM when he defines his scenario, not by the rulebook.

[Seenar]

No game system let's me have fun the way I want to like hero. The biggest fun with convention is to make the character that challenges it. Those fun quirks are what make my character not just another fighter/mage whatever.

In a fantasy game I ran, one player was an undead warrior, created by a necomancer thinking it would be funny to turn the kingdom's version of Lancelot into his champion. That warrior was hunted by a PO'd Lich thereafter.

The point is, the whole "class" concpet is horribly limiting, not just to those of us approaching convention from the side, but especailly to those people who are already struggling to get out of the box.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Seenar
In a fantasy game I ran, one player was an undead warrior, created by a necomancer thinking it would be funny to turn the kingdom's version of Lancelot into his champion. That warrior was hunted by a PO'd Lich thereafter.

Sounds like an ex-paladin with a lich template to me.


Originally posted by Seenar
The point is, the whole "class" concpet is horribly limiting, not just to those of us approaching convention from the side, but especailly to those people who are already struggling to get out of the box.
[/B]

For some, the class is not limiting, merely an informative method of communicating how the world is and how things work.

IMX the further from an established or known "world" you go the more classes help. A class list for priests shows you how divine worshippers develop... is raising the dead harder than curing wounds and as such should you expect to need to learn one before the other? The class structure answers that question. (If your thought is "well thats obvious" consider which would be considered more appropriate for clerics of a god of pain... bringing them back to suffer more might well be a trivial matter but easing their suffering a serious one.)

A class list or set of lists that shows you that wizards cannot heal and that healing only comes from divine sources, tells you how things work and lets you know that your wounded or diseased character would no more think of going to a sorcerer for curing than you would think of going to a tire repair shop for a good meal.

classes can be customized to fit the campaign or the character within the bounds the GM sets for his world. This is encouraged in the DND 3e core books. All in all, they are not very limiting atall, beyond of course the GM and the decisions he makes as to what characters he wants in his game.

If your HERO GM decides not to allow a lich-paladin-vengence -seeker into his game, is that HERO's fault? Nope.

If a DND GM decides not to allow a ex-paladin human turned lich as a PC into his game is that DND's fault? Nope.

[Nightshade]

I think that tesuji has some good points. But, there is one that he kind of glazed over that I think is the most important:

"beyond of course the GM and the decisions he makes as to what characters he wants in his game"

My fantasy game would never work in D&D, simply because of the classes presented in D&D. For example, only wizards can cast spells. All spells or anything that even looks like a spell is something you have to learn (there is no "divine" magic). This doesn't sound too difficult until you look at the D&D classes. I would have to eliminate sorceror entirely; radically alter the cleric, monk, paladin, and ranger; redefine the druid; and leave fighter, wizard, and thief largely untouched. This is for one change, I have others.

I would simply have to do too much changing, and then my players would have a hissy fit trying to figure out everything that was different and how everything is the same. That is far too much for me as a GM and for my players. If your world is "D&D-like," then you can do it fairly easily. If not, then you have a problem with the system.

IMO, that is the nice thing about HERO. It doesn't force the players to pick a pidgeon holed character, or require the GM to design his setting for them, either.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

My fantasy game would never work in D&D, simply because of the classes presented in D&D. For example, only wizards can cast spells. All spells or anything that even looks like a spell is something you have to learn (there is no "divine" magic). This doesn't sound too difficult until you look at the D&D classes. I would have to eliminate sorceror entirely; radically alter the cleric, monk, paladin, and ranger; redefine the druid; and leave fighter, wizard, and thief largely untouched. This is for one change, I have others.

Which sounds like your world needs different classes. Your world has different answers to "how things work" than the greyhawk world does. Thats great.

Whenever you build a custom world, you end up having to answer the "how things work" questions for your world. Then you have to convey this information to your players.

In HERo, you don't have this done for you. in DND you have one version, one world done for you in the core books.



Originally posted by Nightshade

I would simply have to do too much changing, and then my players would have a hissy fit trying to figure out everything that was different and how everything is the same. That is far too much for me as a GM and for my players. If your world is "D&D-like," then you can do it fairly easily. If not, then you have a problem with the system.

OK so, then just ignore the classes presented and then design the ones you want. Thats not too much different than HERO where you start with a core rulebook and then build your world.

Originally posted by Nightshade

IMO, that is the nice thing about HERO. It doesn't force the players to pick a pidgeon holed character, or require the GM to design his setting for them, either.


the players are only pigeon holed into the "how things work" decisions the GM makes for his world, whether playing DND or playing HERO.

You are absolutely correct... the Gm has to invent on his own everything from his world that is not the same or similar enough to the "way things work" in the greyhawk DND world setting.

Thats not harder than the Gm having to invent on his own everything for a fantasy game run by HERO. At least, not in my experience.

DND provides you with a rule set (the basic d20 mechanics)and setting info (feats, classes, spells.) HERO provides you with the rules.

As an example.. In Monte Cook's upcoming Arcana book, he is presenting a different world, a PHb for a world where things dont have the same answers as to "how things work" and his magic system will be different in many ways and his classes will be different. One element he is adding for instance is a ritual magic system which allows any character to perform rituals which are time intensive, materials intensive spells of specific natures.. almost like recipes. This divorces, for his world, class and magic in a small way.

Classes are only as limiting as the Gm wishes. They are as informative as the Gm wishes too.

Think of it this way, there are probably in your well thought out and incredibly brilliantly concieved campaign world a lot of things that dont work. your typical 3 year old human boy probably cannot be a master lock pick and throw storm of Destruction spells. If someone asks for such a PC you would possibly try to explain to them that skills take time to learn, and spells and magic at that scale takes years of stufy.

Now, you can do this on a case by case basis, and figure that the players might be unduly sel;f-censoring themselves with things they dont even ask about, or you can hand them lists of "how things work" to show them how your wonderful and brilliant world works.

Classes are each a list of "how stuff works"... limited to basically an occupation.

No matter how you do it, when you build a custom world you will have to write up or devise these things, at least if that type of consistency or design matters to you, and in my experience classes provide a very usable format for conveying large parts of that information to the players.

Now, again, this is more necessary, IMO, for worlds more farther afield.from what the players know. Modern settings need much less information provides since they already know it. So classes then serve more as benchmarks or as reasonable groupings. D20 modern uses very relaxed classes for most things and strict more rigid classes for the sertting unique stuff. That seems more appropriate. MnM drops classes altogether for its modern supers-world.

[Doug Limmer]

Originally posted by tesuji
[J]ust ignore the classes presented and then design the ones you want. Thats not too much different than HERO where you start with a core rulebook and then build your world. It may not sound too different, but the HERO System gives you lots of guidelines and instructions to help you make new abilities and such. d20 gives you almost no help in making your own classes and abilities. (It gives you examples, but not much more.)

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Doug Limmer
It may not sound too different, but the HERO System gives you lots of guidelines and instructions to help you make new abilities and such. d20 gives you almost no help in making your own classes and abilities. (It gives you examples, but not much more.)

Here is where we differ.

See, what hero gives you is a mathematical formlua and process, that it then emphasizes needs your judgement to oversee because the numbers wont insure balance at all.

Hero also gives you a series of flat values for things like powers and advantages and lims. Unfortunately, when you are talking, as we have been here, about a custom world that is so notably unique it doesn't fit a easy mold, you NEED TO, tho hero doesn't give this much thought, evaluate all those costs.

For example, in a WaterWorld campaign, breath water and swimming are MUCH MORE VALUABLE than they would be priced at in a standard hero life support and swimming cost. In a DARK SUN desert world, they would be much less.

In a campaign world where armor was not common, maybe a swashbuckling environment, armor piercing would not be anywhere near +1/2 as the relative PD/ED would be low. In a knightly arthurian, it might be worth more than +1/2 or even too potent to allow in (i seem to dimly recall the 4e FH suggesting you not use it as it was too lethal?)

HERO's tools presupposed a certain style of setting. When you go into settings even not too far off that you have to do the same evaluations you need to do in building things from scratch.

In essense, you have to rewrite the data values before feeding them into the system so that the results come out the way you want after you run the program.

The thing is, you could have just as easily just assigned the final values... like you do in a non-calculated effect based system.

Just because you have more math to do between assigning the values and reaching the final result doesn't mean the results are more accurate or consistent or better. There are plenty of cases where HERo shows inaccurate results even when used properly... where the current catch phrase is "you need to apply common sense, dramatic sense, and considerations of balance" to realize the math wasn't the answer after all.

IMX, if you think you need the formulas and are as unsure of your ability to assign proper weights and values using your own judgement, preferences and experience, then you are probably just as unlikely to be able to manage the exceptions the formulas produce.

Ok simple question... book not in front of me...

CHAR 1 buys regeneration at 1 boidy per turn with an 8- activation roll so that at the end of any given turn you need to make an 8- roll to get the body back. By the system this costs what? IIRC it works out to be something like 25ap of special healing with -1.5 in healing lims and -2 for the activation roll for a cost of around 6 cp.

CHAR 2 buys regeneration 1 body per 5 minutes. How much does this cost? IIRC its about 25 ap with now about 1.5 in healing lims and -1 more (or is it -1/2 more) for the 5 minutes vs a turn for a cost of 7 cp.

Which one of those on average will produce the most regeneration over 5 minutes? By my looking at it, the first would over a 5 minute window average restoring about 6 body (25 rolls with a 255 chance of success per roll), sometimes more, sometimes less. The latter would cure 1 body.

So in the first case my eavily wounded fighter type needs about 10 minutes os time to come back from 12 body loss in wounds, while my second guy needs about an hour.

Is that a significant difference in your games you think? is that worth maybe a cp or two, maybe worth say double the cp r the latter? If you do think that is worth something why doesn't the tool support you?

Now, on the other hand, if someone came to you for an effect based game and said... "what relative value should I assign between regenerating 1 body every 5 minutes and regenerating an average of 6 body every 5 minutes" would you start at "the same more or less" or maybe start at "six time" and then probably argue yourself down a bit to maybe "hree times"?

Anyway, book not in front of me for exact values but i bet that if i had it and applied it precisely the act roll would be very close in price to the per 5 minutes in spite of it producing a much larger amount of body being healed in a given period of time.

Now, tell me about those tools HERO provided you?

[Nightshade]

Okay...

I have some questions as to your assertions:

1) Where are these methods of changing the classes in D&D? In the DMG, where the entire class chapter is taken up by prestige classes (all of which I hated) exept for 1 page at the beginning? This, of course had the sage-like advise "Use the existing character abilities for reference." Thanks for the tip. :rolleyes:

2) It took me exactly the time it took me to read through FREd to come up with the "how things work" scenerio for my game. It is not particularly difficult. As a matter of fact, there are even sheets in the old Fantasy HERO book that allow a GM to communicate these "setting rules" to players. It would take literally over a hundred hours of work for me to rewrite the base D&D system to meet my needs.
Here are a few that took literally minutes in HERO and what would take me hours in D&D:

a) Magic users are much more speciallized on my world. There are Storm Mages, Diabolists, Infernalists, Elemental Mages, Plant Mages, Shapers, Namers, and dozens more. Try to create a Spirit Mage in D&D using the PHB, DMG, and MM (the only books "required" for the game). For HERO, I just tell me players that magic-users must have either a style of magic (Thaumaturgy, for example) or connected special effects (Fire Mages, for example), and tell them how to buy spells. As a GM, that is a whole lot simpler than having to redo the D&D magic system from scratch (including all of the spells) and then trying to explain it to a D&D player who just wants to game.

b) As stated before, the only people who have magic in any form are the spell casters. The gods are mysteries. I like my world pretty realistic in terms of religion, where there are people who have fought religious wars and worship the same gods. The gods don't talk to us. It is a matter of faith. There are atheists who can discuss their atheism with a preist without the "Oh, yeah. Well, if Tyr didn't exist, how could I do THIS!" People can't prove the existance of gods on my world. This is difficult (at best) in D&D.

c) Codes of ethics: I hate alignments. That is my opinion, and others are entitled to theirs. There is no force of "GOOD" and "EVIL" on my world. I like playing with shades of grey. I love to give my players moral choices and have them deal with things that may be right or wrong (or wrong and really wrong). I would much rather have players define their characters code of ethics through roleplaying than have them define it as an alignment.

d) Levels: I really, really hate levels. I would much rather play a game where I have control of what my character gets better at and at what rate. In HERO, I can play a fighter with a lot of skills (but still a really good fighter), without having to multiclass and get abilities that I don't want and makes no sense for my character. This is more a player thing than a GM issue.

I don't feel that my world is particularly strange. The majority of the races are human. I have elves, dwarves, gnomes, but also have giants (two types), intelligent spiders, and some other goodies :cool:

By the way, these can also be very difficult to do in D&D. :D

Now, that is not to say that D&D doesn't have its merits. It certainly does. It isn't an industry standard and the most popular RPG for nothing. It can do a good job for (I'm sure) most people's worlds with a little tinkering. However, playing a low magic, skill oriented, standard power world without divine magic can be very difficult without changing D&D to something that is definitely not D&D. The best thing world that D&D can run is a world made for D&D. If you didn't have one of those in mind, HERO can generally handle it with less dramatic of a house rule system.

Nightshade

[Doug Limmer]

tesuji: when did I EVER say that the Hero System was automatically balanced? But, at least, the Hero System gives you someplace to start. d20 gives you nothing but some examples. And the original examples probably aren't balanced, themselves.

Take a look at the feats/prestige classes/etc. produced by the original company, Wizards of the Coast. Do even the experts come up with something balanced? That doesn't even mention the third-party products, or the home-brewed stuff. Of course, you need to look over abilities in any system to check for balance (and propriety). However, to try to claim that it's just as easy to balance stuff in d20 as it is in Hero is ludicrous.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

1) Where are these methods of changing the classes in D&D? In the DMG, where the entire class chapter is taken up by prestige classes (all of which I hated) exept for 1 page at the beginning? This, of course had the sage-like advise "Use the existing character abilities for reference." Thanks for the tip.

books not in front of me but i recall there being a section on it in the PHB, a section in the DMG and another set of information in the DMG as well which discusses using non-standard races.

Since DND is not a points driven game but an effect driven game, then the pages and pages of mathematical formulae and proscribed costs are not there. the system expects the Gm who wants to make a change to evaluate that changed based on his game and his knowledge of it, not a formula.

That may be expecting too much for some.

Originally posted by Nightshade

2) It took me exactly the time it took me to read through FREd to come up with the "how things work" scenerio for my game. It is not particularly difficult. As a matter of fact, there are even sheets in the old Fantasy HERO book that allow a GM to communicate these "setting rules" to players. It would take literally over a hundred hours of work for me to rewrite the base D&D system to meet my needs.

there is a reason for that. We will get to it in a moment.

Originally posted by Nightshade

a) Magic users are much more speciallized on my world. There are Storm Mages, Diabolists, Infernalists, Elemental Mages, Plant Mages, Shapers, Namers, and dozens more. Try to create a Spirit Mage in D&D using the PHB, DMG, and MM (the only books "required" for the game).

lets see... we select spells appropriate from the existing ones... many necromancy, some other. We may want to create some class specific ones too. We decide between spontaneous and prepared and a spells per day charts... probably looking at sor/wiz vs bard/pally/ranger depending on our view of it as a magic centric or mixed class. We probably add a cleric like turning ability, limiting its ability to affect some undead. We fill in BAB, hit dice, skills and bonus feats as needed. Depending on how far i wanted to go with custom abilities (a spirit companion ala a familiar or a druid's animal companion for instance) and new spells, it could be quick or long.


Originally posted by Nightshade

For HERO, I just tell me players that magic-users must have either a style of magic (Thaumaturgy, for example) or connected special effects (Fire Mages, for example), and tell them how to buy spells. As a GM, that is a whole lot simpler than having to redo the D&D magic system from scratch (including all of the spells) and then trying to explain it to a D&D player who just wants to game.

OK so if i get you right then my fire mage character can have only one magic spell

Fireball 4d6 RKA Area Effect 12m radius selective with incantations, full phase, 3 uses per day, costs end for about 39 cp. No other magic skills or knowledg is required so then go on to build myself a decent fighter type with the 112 cp left to me out of a typical 150. (I can drop lower if you use a lower total.) Did i miss a restriction? is there actually more about building characters and magic that you forgot to include?

Hmm lets assume there isn't, thats back to the point we will get to shortly.

Originally posted by Nightshade

b) As stated before, the only people who have magic in any form are the spell casters. The gods are mysteries. I like my world pretty realistic in terms of religion, where there are people who have fought religious wars and worship the same gods. The gods don't talk to us. It is a matter of faith. There are atheists who can discuss their atheism with a preist without the "Oh, yeah. Well, if Tyr didn't exist, how could I do THIS!" People can't prove the existance of gods on my world. This is difficult (at best) in D&D.

Huh? Why is this difficult.

option 1: well obviously you change the clerics and other divine magic to read "arcane magic" and drop the gods. the classes still function but the FX for their abilities are arcane instead of divine.

option 2: you drop the divine classes entirely. This may mean pulling some of their traits and spells into the existing arcane classes.


Originally posted by Nightshade

c) Codes of ethics: I hate alignments. That is my opinion, and others are entitled to theirs. There is no force of "GOOD" and "EVIL" on my world. I like playing with shades of grey. I love to give my players moral choices and have them deal with things that may be right or wrong (or wrong and really wrong). I would much rather have players define their characters code of ethics through roleplaying than have them define it as an alignment.

So you vut out the alignments thing and say "i dont use alignments. tell me who you are and play your character. The spells and stuff which key on alignment don't exist." You are done.

Originally posted by Nightshade

d) Levels: I really, really hate levels. I would much rather play a game where I have control of what my character gets better at and at what rate. In HERO, I can play a fighter with a lot of skills (but still a really good fighter), without having to multiclass and get abilities that I don't want and makes no sense for my character. This is more a player thing than a GM issue.

Well first off, the key to doing this in dnd is working out with your gm the probalems you have and getting classes customized. Again, classes create a set of "hown stuff works" establishing for instance that you have to learn basic stuff before advanced stuff and what the basic and advanced stuff are.

i have a hunch that you really truely deeply do NOT want to play in a world where anyeone can choose to develop any thing at any time.I bet you really do want there to be a rhyme and a reason to what you learn and in what order. I bet you would not want to adventure for a while as a fighter and then because you have saved your points want to develop the ability to throw POWERFUL SPELLS overnight, but that instead you would rather be forced to begin with low level spells and work your way up.

Just a hunch.

All levels do is prioritize the order in which things are acquired from low to high and put them down that way.

do you really want to be able to learn that 4d6 fireball spell and know nothing else about magic? Wouldn't you have preferred to be required to gain lesser magics and work your way up to it? Wouldn't that world make more sense?

Originally posted by Nightshade

I don't feel that my world is particularly strange. The majority of the races are human. I have elves, dwarves, gnomes, but also have giants (two types), intelligent spiders, and some other goodies

By the way, these can also be very difficult to do in D&D.

unless i miss my gues, you had to develop the race, determine its abilities give it costs and such. thats pretty much the same as you would do in HERo although the costs would not be calulated but rather assessed.

Now we get to the little point you have been making for me...

the reason you dont have to spend hours on the magic system is because you DEFINED your world as 'working like hero system." breath water costs in your world half as much as spider climb (assuming similar "spell stuff") just like or rather because of the pricing HERO gives life support vs clinging. your mages will throw a few spells then recharge quickly, at least the ones who burn end, while some mages might just throw willy nilly until their charges run out and then have a long delay. Again both of these occur this way because thats what hero makes good.

So what you are saying is: AFTER you define your world to be like HERO does, then you have less work to do using HERO than you would if you tried to use DND for the same world.

Well, DUH!


Originally posted by Nightshade
However, playing a low magic, skill oriented, standard power world without divine magic can be very difficult without changing D&D to something that is definitely not D&D.

i would actually recommend using d20 modern for that and just drop the modern gear and skills. it is more tailored to a skill heavy environment with light magic.

Originally posted by Nightshade

The best thing world that D&D can run is a world made for D&D. If you didn't have one of those in mind, HERO can generally handle it with less dramatic of a house rule system.

The example you give above is a "world made for hero" where the basic decisions are "stuff works like in hero." This is NOT a general showing that HERo is better for non-DND like worlds, just that HERo is better for HERO like worlds.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Doug Limmer

tesuji: when did I EVER say that the Hero System was automatically balanced?

No nor did i say you did. You also have not claimed to have been on the grassy knoll, to have crashed in 47 at roswell, or to have Jimmy hoffa in your roll out couch. Nor have i claimed you did.

Any other side issues you want to bring up before we get back on topic?

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

But, at least, the Hero System gives you someplace to start. d20 gives you nothing but some examples.

Well, the value of the start HERO gives you and the process HERo gives after that is wholly dependent on how much belief in its accuracy you have. In my view, the math is a lie.

For one thing, there are more examples than the one i just gave, many using basic failry simple stuff, which show the results to be obviously defying common sense and many of these are supported even to this day by the main designer. (extra limbs cost, combat skills array cost, just to name two off the top of my head and the additive nature of advantages vs the multiplicative nature of lims is another huge issue.)

Second, the entire notion of the static costs is in itself huge. My water breathing example above is one easy example, as is the Ap one.

Thirdly and most importanly, HERO's balance works if and only if the GM makes it work. If the GM builds his worlds, his characters, his challenges with deliberate intent to make it work in HERO then HERO's balance works. if he does not, then it doesn't. In spite of all the math, if he doesn't run the game in a way to make hero work, it doesn't balance.

The simplest example i can give you is imagine if in your world you had a PC lightning mage and a fire mage who were identical except for your fx decision. Now imagine if your story for the campaign revolves around anecromancer using his undead minions and his own powers to do the various evil deeds and so most of the scenarios deal with this. Imagine if also your simple vision has undead with vulnerability to fire.

Does that sound too far afield? A story wrapped around an evil necromancer and his undead minions and undead being hurt by fire?

But suddenly the two PCs are not longer balanced. Suddenly mtr fire mage is wailing in for 1.5xdamage often and moreover in the big story arc sessions.

Is flying really worth only as much as running? That really depends on the number of interior battles vs exterior and the number of ground movement challneged encounters and the biggie... the number of flying barmints with ranged attacks that assault your party. Which scenario do you script and how often will determine the answer.

is swimming really not worth as much as running? Well in that waterworld campaign... the scenarios you script will determine the answer.

i got a million of 'em.

if your campaign features a lot of golems built as construct immune to stun, is stun only EB really a no charge change?

So, in my mind, as you can see, i dont believe in the math producing right answers in the first place... right here being more or less consistent or logical taken in abstract. Sometimes its right, but too many times it produces unreasonable results. Add to this the final conclusion, that whetever the numbers are they will only turn out in play to be balanced based on what i script, that the points i bless are only valid when and because I make them so in play...

and you might see why i dont see hero as providing me with more tools, or with better tools.

what hero does do is change the getting started dynamic into an incredibly complex one. That directly smakcs my ability to get a game going and get players involved.


Originally posted by Doug Limmer

And the original examples probably aren't balanced, themselves.

personally i dont like PRCs much at all and never use them. they dont fit into my game world. oddly enough, i did not feel compelled to use them.

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

Take a look at the feats/prestige classes/etc. produced by the original company, Wizards of the Coast. Do even the experts come up with something balanced? That doesn't even mention the third-party products, or the home-brewed stuff.

See above... see my sig... balance does not come from the system. it comes from the GM enforcing in play the values he sold to the players in character creation.

I am not saying that it is EASIER... i think i said just as easy at one point.

I am saying its quicker and somewhat less work. In HERO i got all this math and force my players thru all this math and for every case for every ability i goyya ay somepoint examine the RESULTS and judge whether i think its right by comparison with other things BASED ON WHAT I EXPECT TO PUT THEM THROUGH. if so, great, if not i change it.

In DND, i skip all the first part and just judge whether i think its balanced BASED ON WHAT I EXPECT TO PUT THEM THROUGH. If so, great, if not i gotta make a change.

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

Of course, you need to look over abilities in any system to check for balance (and propriety). However, to try to claim that it's just as easy to balance stuff in d20 as it is in Hero is ludicrous.


The balance occurs because i approve a value and then in play i MAKE that value a reality, i make my scenarios show that value to be a good and proper one..

that is no harder or easier in DND or HERo or Buffy or traveller. Some system just require you and your players to do a lot more figuring before you get to the important stage... approval and enforcement.

Now that said... some people may NEED the math. A GM unsure of his GMing or wanting a complex system to make it look like he has 'good math" backing him up, might very well prefer to say "use this book" and not just tell his players that he expects balance will come out in play. he may want them to believe, and even believe it himself that the balance comes from the book and not him and lord knows this may be a comfort when a scenario goes wrong and he has angry, or worse dissapointed, PCs on his hands.

But IMO any GM from even moderate level of competence is better served by his own judgement and his own intimate knowledge of his campaign for balance than he is with a bulging rulebook and math out the wazoo. For the less competent ones, the complexity of HERo makes it a poor choice on its own weight.

[Markdoc]

Hmmm. It's funny, but in way, Tesuji emphasises exactly the point that made the original poster rant.

He's describingthe way things are in DnD and saying "Now isn't this more logical?"

The answer of course, is no. That's the way things work in DnD. Should you build a character with the fireball spell and spend the rest on Fighter skills? Well, dammit, that's not the DnD way.

But in fact, I DID play a very similar character in Hero system (a very few attack-type fire spells, a big two-handed sword and an attitude) and he was both fun to play and (gasp) well-balanced with the rest of the party.

Hero is a metasystem - it is far easier to generate the world (or character) you want than with DnD. Lord knows I have tried both and I have witnessed the attempts of others to do the same. The price you pay is more metagaming jargon upfront.

Yes, you can customise DnD (I always did, when I GM'ed it routinely). The 'orrible prestige classes you wisely avoid show how even the game designers often do a poor job of it.

All this stuff about three-year olds is largely a red herring. No, in my game world 3-year olds do not routinely have the fireball power. I do not inform my players of this. In my game world, horses generally have 4 legs on the bottom and the head is normally at the end designated "front". I do not inform them of this, either - or even of the fact that cows use a variant of the basic horse rules, with the addition of an HKA. :-)

None of which has much to do with game world design: I WOULD inform them if any of these things were significantly different.

When I ran a 3e game recently, I told the players "Make up 4th level characters, standard rules, no prestige classes, you can each choose one magic item from this list - oh, and you better have at least one cleric." Simple, easy, we all know we are on the same page.

When I ran a Hero sytem game recently I said "Make up 200 point characters suitable for the WH40K Inquisitor universe, equipment has to be paid for". Simple, easy, we all know we are on the same page.

Both games worked fine.

cheers, Mark

[Nightshade]

Let's try this in a more simple format:

I am not saying that D&D is bad. Far from it. I have played in and run many D&D games and had fun. It will do many things well and some things not. I have played in and run many HERO games and had fun. It also will do many things well and some things not.

But here is the crux of the discussion. I will give it as two examples of play that have happened in games that I participated in.

Example 1) I was running a 3rd ed. game and things were going poorly. The players liked the scenerio, but had a few complaints about their characters.

Complaint 1: The Ranger simply had too much combat ability and not enough skills. He did not want to multiclass into Rogue, as that simply made no sense to him. He was 4th level and had put his point into INT, but he would have to wait until 8th level before it helped him with any more skill points.

Complaint 2: The Enchanter had problems with spells, specifically the lack of enchantment/charm spells. He had them all, but when he got to 4th level, it was noticed that the only 2nd level spell was Hideous Laughter, which he had already taken at 3rd level. In effect, he got no advantage from his specialization.

Complaint 3: The Rogue wanted to use a lasoo as her primary weapon. She took rope use, and the Exotic weapon feat, but there were no real rules for its use. She is a very "rules" oriented player.

The second two were relatively easy to "hand-wave" away (I let the wizard take another spell that looked kind of like a charm spell and ropes are not THAT difficult to model). The first one had me stuck. I couldn't reasonably add skills to the Ranger class, especially by attempting to lower the combat ability. The Rogue class multiclass was the only alternative, so we sort of just ignored the sneak attack stuff and let him just take it as a level and moved on.

Not long after, we changed over to HERO, and every one of the players (none of whom had ever played HERO before) were much happier with their characters.

Example 2: I tried to run my fantasy world in D&D. I would call it a complete disaster. First, I had to (as you suggested) modify the majority of the classes, removing (yes eliminated completely) all of the prestige classes save Duelist (with a rewrite of where they came from), sorceror, monk, cleric, ranger and paladin. I then created from scratch other classes to replace the basic ones that I had eliminated. This took a LOT of time. I never got to the prestige classes (other than duelist, since that one was easy).

I then attempted to run a game. After hearing what I did to D&D to make it fit my game, no one wanted to join. It was "too far" away from "standard fantasy" and people wouldn't even give it a try. I eventually threw up my hands, threw away everything and decided that if I wanted to run D&D, I'd just use Greyhawk, as most players were looking at the gods in the PHB as the ONLY ones that they can worship.

The first example is why some people don't like D&D as players. The second is why some people don't like D&D as GM's.

Now, I only have one real question that needs a response, and it is the question that I always ask when I get into these long, drawn out discussions where people seemingly don't read each others' posts (I admit that I am guilty of this as well).

Why did you join the Fantasy HERO forum if you obviously like D&D more than Fantasy HERO? Why even be interested in another system if you like D&D? In my mind, you found a system that you like and works for your style of play, so why even look anywhere else?

For my part, I hate D&D. That's an opinion, but one I can certainly argue at length about (a person with a 3 STR can beat a person with an 18 STR at arm wrestling 12.5% of the time! Amazing! I don't think my 4 year old (3 STR at best) can beat me (STR 13-14) 1% of the time at anything requiring strength). That is my personal choice. If you prefer D&D, great! That's your choice, and certainly one you are entitled to.

However, I consider it bad manners to come to another company's discussion boards and start extolling the merits of D&D over HERO. I certainly don't belong to any discussion board concerning any d20 product.

Nightshade

[Ndreare]

Originally posted by Nightshade
where people seemingly don't read each others' posts (I admit that I am guilty of this as well).

Nightshade

I read the post.

For the record we may read the post however sometimes people become more serious than we want to be.

I also feel however that a few people have touched on as things that make sense to them and they are the very things that frustrate me.

As the original poster on this topic I was complaining about a mentality that seems all too common. For gods sake if one or two people actually read a book not based on DAD then they would probably see were I am coming from or tell me how stupid both me and the crazy book are. Look at the list of books recommended by the big Steve Long, how many of those can be emulated with the class system DAD lovers use?

[AnotherSkip]

Actually tis post is mostly for Tesuji.

Since you brought up some apples and oranges with D&D and HERO I just would like you to do me a favor with some of your apples.

Find out how much Waterbreathing and Underwater movement (possibly underwater combat also) (those two to three _only_ separated from everything else) are worth to a beggining character in D&D3RD Waterdeep character. Perferably in the value of stats/beggining skills packages. Oh yeah and keep the values separate. This would be nice for a character i have in mind.

Meanwhile in Hero if a Gm so chooses WB can be free in his campaign, or the value can be increased/decreased. Why? because if it makes sense you can _change_ it and that is a prime rule of the toolkit. Just like if a Gm Chose to everyone could have innate WB in any campaign irregardles of what system you build it on. If you think for your campaign that the movement powers are unbalanced then by all means house-rule or campaign-rule them. Steve has not enlisted the Gaming Police to track down rules violators so they may be shot at dawn.

Heck most D&D3RDGM's would shoot on sight a WB character unless he had some significant problems.

Heck I personally use a houserule version of NCM. I Don't really care what Steve Says on the subject ill take what I want and change some I don' t like and toss the rest.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

Complaint 1: The Ranger simply had too much combat ability and not enough skills. He did not want to multiclass into Rogue, as that simply made no sense to him. He was 4th level and had put his point into INT, but he would have to wait until 8th level before it helped him with any more skill points.

OK, this seems to be a case of character design by player choice not matching the players goal. If you want to build a ranger with less combat ability and more skills the answer is rather simple, even if you are multiclass-o-phobic. You spend fewer attribute points on the stats which make you combat effective (str, int, con) and more on int so you get more skills. You can double the rangers base skills with the points typically spent on combat stuff and still have points left over.

Now if that is also aesthetically displeasing, like apparently multicalssing is tho i dont get it, you could also take the step of asking the GM at the beginning to customize the character class as the books recommend. A simple substitution say, adding 2 base skills per rank in excahnge for losing all the TWF/ambi stuff would probably be acceptable by many Gms.

In my game, one character wanted a ranger but the archer model seemed more in line with his character. he asked me and i allowed dropping the AMBI/TWF for a fighter bonus feat. He got what he wanted and play commenced.



Originally posted by Nightshade

Complaint 2: The Enchanter had problems with spells, specifically the lack of enchantment/charm spells. He had them all, but when he got to 4th level, it was noticed that the only 2nd level spell was Hideous Laughter, which he had already taken at 3rd level. In effect, he got no advantage from his specialization.

Well its possible that the player missed something, a rather important note, when they devised their character. Not all of the schools of magic are created equal. Each school has its own level of potence and they are not equal by any means.

This means when you take a weaker school, you might not see as many benefits as when you take a stronger one. this may represent itself in sometimes, at certain points, not seeing every possible advantage being paid off at every level... much like how some classes gain very little at some levels and more at others.

Of course, this is recognized in the rules. When the PLAYER chose enchantment as a specialization, did she also complain that she did not have to give up as many or as significant enough counter schools as she would have had she chose evocation or conjuration? Did she feel it inappropriate that she give up less to gain the specialization benefits oor did her malaise only begin when she saw the benefits a little less?

Anyway, regardless of whether she managed to connect "paying less" with 'getting less" at all, the easiest answer is to, as GM, communicate to your characters that there are more spells than just the ones in the PHB in the world and introduce them yourself. providing access to these spells for specialists and to even normal wizards but through communication and interaction with wizards is a great way to promote less "kill 'em all" and more "talk first" scenarios and foster building relationships.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Complaint 3: The Rogue wanted to use a lasoo as her primary weapon. She took rope use, and the Exotic weapon feat, but there were no real rules for its use. She is a very "rules" oriented player.

So you as Gm provide her with rules. the gnome in my game wanted lasso too. i gave him rules. he used it a number of times to great effect. The scene long ago where he used it to lasso the enemy dwarf and handed off his end to (or rather had it taken by) the allied dwarven tank who proceeded to drag the enemy fighter into a pit was priceless.

BTW just as a point of order, i did not see lasso in the weapons section of the HERO5 rules either. presumably, if she wanted that weapon in HERo5 you would need to build one for her, or possibly let her stat it and you approve it. Why wont that solution work for DND?



Originally posted by Nightshade

The second two were relatively easy to "hand-wave" away (I let the wizard take another spell that looked kind of like a charm spell and ropes are not THAT difficult to model). The first one had me stuck. I couldn't reasonably add skills to the Ranger class, especially by attempting to lower the combat ability.

Why not? Ok sure it should have been done at lower level but certainly both you and the player can concieve of a class who spends more time on skills and less time on combat, thus removing some combat advancement and adding some skills seems possible and no unreasonable at all.



Originally posted by Nightshade

The Rogue class multiclass was the only alternative, so we sort of just ignored the sneak attack stuff and let him just take it as a level and moved on.

Actually i would have been very tempted to keep the multiclass and make it "favored enemy specific" to make it play different from the rogue. But thats just me.

But again, having more stats in INT and less in STR, CON, DEX seems to me to be the simplest way to achieve the problem solution as yu described it. I normally play around 32 point builds and Str 12 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 14 CHA 10 would produce about 7 skill points per level and definitely show less emphasis on combat. if they emphasized beef stats in build and spent little on INt and then complained about having too few skills, then i would suggest that the problem was a misunderstanding on how to build what they wanted.

Would you fault HERo for a guy who built a mentalist with a 10 ego and then complained because his mental powers missed a lot?


Originally posted by Nightshade

I then attempted to run a game. After hearing what I did to D&D to make it fit my game, no one wanted to join. It was "too far" away from "standard fantasy" and people wouldn't even give it a try.

Sounds like you and the players you were eyeing as candidates wanted different games. this is not a system issue, is it?

Originally posted by Nightshade

The first example is why some people don't like D&D as players. The second is why some people don't like D&D as GM's.

Well the first seems to be a mixture of inexperience in design and misunderstanding. The second just seems to be a player and gm mismatch.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Now, I only have one real question that needs a response,

Ok.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Why did you join the Fantasy HERO forum if you obviously like D&D more than Fantasy HERO?

Why do i go to burger king on occasion when i like Wendy's more? EVEn if you prefer A to B its not the same as limiting yourself to only ever getting A and then excluding B from your life.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Why even be interested in another system if you like D&D?

Because most systems have good points and bad points and while over the years i have played many systems, including having GMed three different FH campaigns (not to mention the number of HERO based supers games) I find i learn things, both good and bad, from such exposure. Even if i never choose to play FH again, i learned things from those campaigns that helped me when i run MNM or DND or Vampire the masquerade.

To me, liking one system better than another, finding one system meets my needs for this campaign better than some other system does not equate to forbidding and exiling the other system to oblivion and then exiling myself from contact with other players who still have the audacity to play that other system.

In short, i am amazed that this is even a question?

Originally posted by Nightshade

In my mind, you found a system that you like and works for your style of play, so why even look anywhere else?

because i find the notion of cutting myself off that much to be incredibly and unbelievably and unnecessarily limiting.

Originally posted by Nightshade

However, I consider it bad manners to come to another company's discussion boards and start extolling the merits of D&D over HERO.

Maybe you will notice this but i did not start this thread. Matter of fact you wont find ANY thread about DND vs HERo or MNM vs HERO by me on this board.

I dont START extolling... but when i find people on boards i frequent who BEGIN THIER OWN discussions about the aspects of two games i have knowledge of, i will chime in and add my contribution. if i dont have knowledge i usually wont... as you will notice that i have not chimed in on a thread running round about hero vs sas d20.

it seems odd that you would find it perfeclty find for other people to start "hero and dnd " threads on this board but would single out only those who dont follow your opinion as those who you consider it rude for them to voice their opinions.

also please note that, for the most part, i have not been extolling DND over HERO. mostly i have been saying that DND is as good. i personally see merit in DNDs flexible classes for a fantasy game and dont see them as the strightjackets some people here seem to feel.

The impression i get is that its very common round here to see DND as inflexible, when you decide you dont want to alter it or invent your own stuff to meet your campaign needs, and that hero is more flexible because it doesn't give you any thing you need to change and expects you to make it all up. Its highlighted by the idea that changing the DND spells will take a lot of work but making them all up from scratch in hero is fun.

i think if your initial world image is far from either systems base designs AND you come at it with an attitude of "i dont want to alter things and create new things to make my image come true" then you will find neither system works well.

Think of it this way... if you want to run a scifi game that is unlike terran empires... does the terran empires book make you do more work? NO? Then the greyhawk stuff should not make it more work to run non-greyhawk. if you tried to recruit a bunch of players who had played terran empires and wanted to play terran empires and who decided to not even try the "flatworld" campaign you devides... would you be here beefing about terran Empires ruining your game or how bad HERO players are?







Originally posted by Nightshade

I certainly don't belong to any discussion board concerning any d20 product.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Markdoc

The answer of course, is no. That's the way things work in DnD. Should you build a character with the fireball spell and spend the rest on Fighter skills? Well, dammit, that's not the DnD way.

Actually its not "the dnd way" as the issue but how much sense does the world make? What are the "reasonable" things that one would expect. is it reasonably to know how to throw just one extremely powerful fireball and have no other knowledge of magic? or is it reasonable to expect to have to work thru several lower level enchantments and garner a level of skill before being able to throw such a powerful enchantment?

these are game world designs. you need them in both games. DND presents this information through example classes and spells with levels. A HERo game GM apparently doesn't need to present these at all and can just say build it and be done?

thats not how i remember hero games running? thats not the approaches i recall seeing in FH4th.

I find it wonderful to see people decrying classes right left and sideways and yet i see package deals after package deals in every hero product that seeks to show genre or campaign style info.



Originally posted by Markdoc

But in fact, I DID play a very similar character in Hero system (a very few attack-type fire spells, a big two-handed sword and an attitude) and he was both fun to play and (gasp) well-balanced with the rest of the party.

Thats cool but color me simple if i suspoect that the Gm had even a few campaign restrictions or at the very least you and he started on similar pages, so to speak.

Originally posted by Markdoc

All this stuff about three-year olds is largely a red herring. No, in my game world 3-year olds do not routinely have the fireball power.

Why not? if a burly fighter guy with no training can throw 4d6k fireballs, why not a 3 year old? Why should we assume that a huge guy with no magic training can throw fireballs but a three year old cannot? if one is acceptable and fun why is the other unacceptable or unbelievable or silly or just not to be even worth considering?

Why wouldn't a three year old who is in fact an abandoned fey son of a ruling effreti hidden away in the world who can throw fireballs not even worth considering in a fantasy world populated by dragons... but Mongo throwing fireballs without a day of magical training is FUN and COOL?

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Find out how much Waterbreathing and Underwater movement (possibly underwater combat also) (those two to three _only_ separated from everything else) are worth to a beggining character in D&D3RD Waterdeep character.

DND does not use a cost or point system for most things.
Can you tell me how many feats i should have to spend in HERO for the ability to throw 4d6 RKA fireballs selective?

There are some general costs for magic items and a ring of waterbreathing has a value and there may even be (book not in front of me) an item of the titton or somesuch which gives both water breathing and a free movement sort of thing.

I am not all that damiliar with waterdeep having never ran it or played in it, so i cannot assess the regions impact. frankly, it really matters more the campaign the Gm plans to run.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Perferably in the value of stats/beggining skills packages. Oh yeah and keep the values separate. This would be nice for a character i have in mind.

Now we are getting somewhere, explain the character concept and source for the water breathing and water movement stuff. It will probably include extra swimming too.

Now my first inclination would be too look at the DMG section on non-standard races and the MM section on aquatic elves. They might even give some ECL recommendations which will be taken with a little saltwater since they don't know the specifics of my campaign.

Then, after seeing the character background and deciding if it makes sense, i will probably look at one of two approaches. First i will compare the overall racial mods to the other standard races such as elf and dwarf (who have combinations of advantages and disadvantages) and see if your choice is comparable. This will DEFINITELY involve me thinking about the campaign i will be running and how many underwater adventures i plan and how the rest of the party will deal with it. (For example, if as part of the story nereid tears which provide these capabilities to humans will be available, then your own natural abilities are just flavor more or less.) Its possible it will cause an ECL increasde, but maybe not.

If i choose not to use the ECL approach, i might provide a significant flaws such as a penalty on saves vs fire that will serve as a counter.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Meanwhile in Hero if a Gm so chooses WB can be free in his campaign, or the value can be increased/decreased. Why? because if it makes sense you can _change_ it and that is a prime rule of the toolkit. Just like if a Gm Chose to everyone could have innate WB in any campaign irregardles of what system you build it on. If you think for your campaign that the movement powers are unbalanced then by all means house-rule or campaign-rule them. Steve has not enlisted the Gaming Police to track down rules violators so they may be shot at dawn.

Thank you!!!

Thats what i have been trying to say.

In both systems, you have to look at the values and choose ones that are right for your game. The math doesn;t make the poinbts right. You setting the values to make the cost right does. You make a subjective valuation over whether 5 pts is right for Wb or whether it should be free or more based on your knowledge of your campaign and your assessment.

Absolutely!!!

the point is that when you are the one choosing whether or not wall crawling is twice as valuable over water breathing or not, then you did not need math to make that subjective decision.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Heck most D&D3RDGM's would shoot on sight a WB character unless he had some significant problems.

I dont know most DND GMs. Of the ones i know, most would consider it. i allowed it in an older DND game, maybe 1e, i took off some of the elven benefits to compensate.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Heck I personally use a houserule version of NCM. I Don't really care what Steve Says on the subject ill take what I want and change some I don' t like and toss the rest.


in my experience most games use house rules.

[Markdoc]

>>> Why wouldn't a three year old who is in fact an abandoned fey son of a ruling effreti hidden away in the world who can throw fireballs not even worth considering in a fantasy world populated by dragons... but Mongo throwing fireballs without a day of magical training is FUN and COOL?<<<

Well, if Mongo is possessed by a destructive fire spirit, why not? And in my case, the Fireball-casting swordsman had a background (of course) that explained why and how.

But you seem to be intent on making my point for me!

Either of the options you mention above above would be OK and easy to model in Hero: neither would be even possible in DnD without wreaking havoc on the system.

You are confusing world design with game design. Should Fantasy worlds have their own internal logic? For me that goes without saying, whether you are playing Hero system, DnD or Teenagers from Outer Space.

Does DnD have more internal consistency than Hero? HELL, no! I have played in plenty of DnD worlds where logic and consistency went out the window (Day-glo pink mummies with bowler hats and spats, riding on flying sharks, is one example from a DnD game that springs to mind - and actually a pretty cool game, too.) Is UnderEarth (DnD) more logical than Western Shores (Hero?). Of course not. Both are settings, not game systems.

This is why in the example you cited (the dangerous three year-old) I said 3 year-olds do not NORMALLY throw fireballs: because of course I could envisage situations (such as the one you posted) where it COULD happen. But that's as true in DnD as Hero (see Day-Glo pink mummies, above).

You are making the (mistaken) assumption that because many possibilities are easily modelled in Hero system that all possibilities must be considered, which of course is nonsense. The possibilities available are defined by the setting and the setting needs to be discussed between players and GM before starting off.

I think where the confusion arises is that DnD presupposes a setting - with rangers and clerics, thieves and fighters, where magic works thus and so, and adventurers look thus and so. Doesn't matter if the background setting is GreyHawk or Magical Knight RayEarth, if you use the standard DnD rules, then the game could be set in the same universe. It IS reasonably balanced (no argument there), simply because it is predesigned.

I am converting Runequest to Hero system right now and when I have finished I will have a 6-8 page document that I can give to my players in the full expectation of being able to say "here are the world guidleines, make up a character" - and then take it from there. Due to the beauty of the Hero metasystem, I know that will also provide reasonably balanced characters. That document says nothing about spell-casting three year-olds either :-)

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Markdoc

Well, if Mongo is possessed by a destructive fire spirit, why not? And in my case, the Fireball-casting swordsman had a background (of course) that explained why and how.

So, even in HERO you expect the world to make sense. In order for the world to make sense, there needs to be a defined sense for it. That means coveying the sense of what is reasonable and what is not. In spite of your comment earlier, you might well need to tell your players that 3 year olds throwing fireballs is definitely a possibility in this world, whose frequency will depend on the people they encounter.



Originally posted by Markdoc

Either of the options you mention above above would be OK and easy to model in Hero: neither would be even possible in DnD without wreaking havoc on the system.

So you seem to be thinking, I wounder why you think that.

There is NOTHING in the DND system which forbids this.

The most obvious way is to determine the "race" of the creature as a non-standard race. Depending on the strength of the fireball, it may be one looking for an ECL bonus or not. It also depends on whether any reasonable drawbacks are assigned... like a vulnerability to cold and how often the Gm plans to apply that in play.

I could probably work it out within 5 minutes with the player who brought it up.

Did DND the system assume this would be a standard character and provide you prefabbed rules to accomodate it... no. neither did hero. In HERo it has to be made up, either by GM or by player and then vetted by GM.

Originally posted by Markdoc

You are confusing world design with game design.

Avtually it seems to me that you are. I am going to great length to separate the two. classes are not system design, they are campaign design. The degree to which a Gm is willing to vary his classes and races from the baseline is campaign design not system design.

people seem to be drawing the conclusion that hero promotes this by not giving you a campaign set and that since DND gives you a campaign set it discourages it. That boggles my mind.

Did you feel that all of your scifi campaigns became unworkable after terran empires came out?

Originally posted by Markdoc

Should Fantasy worlds have their own internal logic? For me that goes without saying, whether you are playing Hero system, DnD or Teenagers from Outer Space.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by Markdoc

Does DnD have more internal consistency than Hero? HELL, no! I have played in plenty of DnD worlds where logic and consistency went out the window (Day-glo pink mummies with bowler hats and spats, riding on flying sharks, is one example from a DnD game that springs to mind - and actually a pretty cool game, too.) Is UnderEarth (DnD) more logical than Western Shores (Hero?). Of course not. Both are settings, not game systems.

I agree completely. I never said DND has more consistency.

Originally posted by Markdoc

This is why in the example you cited (the dangerous three year-old) I said 3 year-olds do not NORMALLY throw fireballs: because of course I could envisage situations (such as the one you posted) where it COULD happen. But that's as true in DnD as Hero (see Day-Glo pink mummies, above).

So you seem to be agreeing that neither hero nor dnd has any claim on having more consistency and that any consistency arguments are made at the campaign definition level.

is that right?

Originally posted by Markdoc

You are making the (mistaken) assumption that because many possibilities are easily modelled in Hero system that all possibilities must be considered, which of course is nonsense.

I am? Not sure where this notion comes from.

i was if you will notice responding to the specific point where the other poster said all he had to do was tell the players to generate the characters an follow hero rules as opposed to spending time developing classes and such.

Originally posted by Markdoc

The possibilities available are defined by the setting and the setting needs to be discussed between players and GM before starting off.

Absolutely!!! We are in complete agreement. The only difference is that DND happens to provide one such setting in its core rulebooks. if you dont like that setting you can do the same legwork you have to do in HERo, devise your own.

The catch is, if you happen to want a campaign that shares any notable similarities with the one already there, then its likely you will be saved some work. If not, you are back at square one, just like in hero.


Originally posted by Markdoc

I think where the confusion arises is that DnD presupposes a setting - with rangers and clerics, thieves and fighters, where magic works thus and so, and adventurers look thus and so. Doesn't matter if the background setting is GreyHawk or Magical Knight RayEarth, if you use the standard DnD rules, then the game could be set in the same universe. It IS reasonably balanced (no argument there), simply because it is predesigned.

I would not say DND presupposed but rather provides. of course all of its products are set in that universe or the couple universes, much like i expect all of wotc's terran empire supplements will be set in the terran empire sourcebook.



Originally posted by Markdoc

I am converting Runequest to Hero system right now and when I have finished I will have a 6-8 page document that I can give to my players in the full expectation of being able to say "here are the world guidleines, make up a character" - and then take it from there. Due to the beauty of the Hero metasystem, I know that will also provide reasonably balanced characters. That document says nothing about spell-casting three year-olds either :-)


right and the same document for a DND based game set in runequest would outline the class difference, added some new classes, and so forth. In either system if you want to create a custom world, you have to do the legwork and provide your players with enough info. One does not require more work than the other, UNLESS teh custom world bears more similarity with the "core" of each system than the other and thus allows more "as the core rules provide" shared code, , which was my point.

To be honest, most HERO games i have seen ran have never taken the step to detail their world anywhere near as well as the three DND core books did. Most games, whether supers or fantasy have done mostly what the poster described... tell them the point range and have them generate the PCs. At best there were some cases where either sample NPCs were provided or ranges were given.

When i ran my Fh games, i provided magic systems and detailed
backgrounds and many different options such as racial templates and the like. The magic systems themselves built in a "logical progression" from weak to strong as part of its mechanics (advancement proceeded in somewhat larger expensive leaps when general increases in power were achieved.)

I had to do a lot of work for those games to get them going, not all world building as i also did a LOT of work toning down the HERO-isms in the play to keep it to a level when i could easily get new players and not hero veterans involved. streamlining HERo was a chore, more of a chore than streamlining DND was.

[Nightshade]

Fine. Here we go again. Now we will have to define the system for D&D.

I would place all of the classes as part of the D&D system. Why? Because they are in the D&D players handbook. They are not posed as suggestions, considerations, or even examples. They are part of the rules. That is not only my interpretation, but the intrepretation of every single potential player in my D&D on my world example I gave before. Not a couple people, dozens of people. Not a single group, every single person I talked to.

What you are actually comparing is the d20 system to HERO, not D&D. D&D is the fantasy version of d20. I can't think of a single published work that stated "ignore all of the classes in the PHB, and use these instead" for a d20 fantasy game. Granted, I don't buy a lot of d20 books, but I highly doubt that any did that. They very likely added a couple basic classes and a bunch of prestige classes.

But, since we're talking about campaigns vs. systems, let's talk about some things that are specifically system oriented.

1) Statistics

As I mentioned earlier, a person with a 3 STR (i.e. a person with the strength of a three or four year old) has a 12.5% chance of beating someone with a STR of 18 (who is a professional weightlifter). That makes sense. This is, of course, due to the statistic system used in d20, and the fact that the dice (not the statistic) are more important. Get a good roll, and it really doesn't matter what your stats are.

Compare that to HERO. If a person with a STR of 3 arm wrestled (or attempted a purely strength based action) against someone who had a STR of 18, the STR 3 character would get 1/2d6 while the other would get 3 1/2d6 to resist. In order to win, the low strength character would have to roll a 4,5, or 6, and the high strength character would have to roll 3 ones and a 1,2, or 3 (for the half-die) on his roll. That has an odds of happening of 1:864. That seems more reasonable to me. It is possible, but if it ever happened, you would be amazed.

2) Skills

d20's skill resolution system is the epitome of randomness. Characters starting out with say a craft skill can make masterwork objects at 2nd level. Granted, it is a 5% chance (they have to roll a 20). Of course, they could just say "I'm going to paint a picture. How good is it?" They roll and get a 20! Amazing! Their first real attempt and they get a masterpiece! Their next attempt, they roll a 3 (+5) and get an 8. Low quality work. Not worth the paint they used to make it. That sort of makes sense, they aren't consistent, yet, but with practice...

But wait, here's a wrinkle. We don't need to roll. I can just take 20. There's no real hurry. I can just do it. No problem! This is, of course, a beginner (an apprentice, basically) in the field.

Now lets go to HERO. I have the professional skill: painter, but its the same situation. I have an 11- roll (in both circumstances, I am ignoring any stat modification). If I want a masterpiece, that is very difficult, so I take a -8 to my roll. I now have a 3-. I have a 1:216 chance of success. Again, doable, but not likely (and much harder than 5%). Okay, now I want to just make a painting. I make a roll and what do you know! A 3! Does that make it masterwork? Not last I checked. Because there is a point to declaring what you are attempting.

'Course, you could do that with d20 as well. But then, HERO doesn't have take 10 and take 20, so they have to put more skill points to consistently make masterwork objects, not just more time (although that does give a bonus, too).

3) Combat

Here's a fun one. Try to make a called shot in D&D using the PHB, DMG, or MM. Sick of trying to find the rules? That's because you can't. That's right. That is, of course, why a chain shirt or a breast plate lowers your overall armor class. I have only met one GM for D&D that stated that they were not going to make some called shot rules, but the concept that you had to do it at all is puzzling.

Here's some other things that D&D didn't bother putting rules in for:

a) lasoo (this was already mentioned, and as I stated, easily overcome)
b) Fencing - Try to make a lightly armored hand to hand fighter in D&D that can survive without magic. It can be done in HERO, and it doesn't take anything more than reading the book.
c) Bec de Corbins, picks, and crossbows - These were weapons that were specifically designed to penetrate heavy armors. The Bec de Corbin is sometimes called the first can opener. That would be armor piercing in HERO. That would be a pain in the butt in D&D.
d) Martial arts - HERO has how many manuevers in the base book? 12 or more (I don't have it with me). IIRC, D&D has the monk (the only basic martial artist) with flurry of blows, quivering palm, and ummm... urmm... maybe one other? Real good choices, there. Way to be dramatic.

4) Character generation

D&D did much better this time than last about giving characters stat points in lieu of rolling dice to get statistics (even though it is just one of the options). However, they do limit some of the choices in terms of other, seemingly simple (in HERO terms) things.

a) Money - Why is your starting money related in any way to your class? I can understand it with Monk, but any of the others, it simply makes no sense. Why can't I start off with more? Or start off penniless? And then to make it a random roll. Ugh. Again, much easier from HERO, IMO.

b) Alignment - I stated this before. D&D PHB specifically states that good and evil are forces in the game. Many of the prestige classes (and even some of the basic classes) have alignment restrictions. Get rid of alignment, and some of the classes become MUCH more powerful (Paladin, Monk).

5) Character development

Everyone knows that you go through life learning things in spurts. You go to school for 4 years and come out a level 1 engineer (congradulations!). Now, you get your first job, and you learn nothing for a few weeks/months and then suddenly everything clicks together at once. Then you learn nothing for a while and then one day, you learn more. Now you decide to go to school part time and get your MBA. You gain another level of engineer during that time (you are now a PE, for example) and then you learn NO engineering for a long time, because you had to learn all of your MBA skills (all at once) to get your degree and be a 1st level administrator.

HERO's skill system is much more fluid, and has a lot more flexibility than any level based system.

Don't get me started on the absolutely terrible classes (IMO) that they designed for D&D. I could rant for days on how powerful the cleric is compared to anyone else save, perhaps, for the paladin. Or how grossly underpowered the Ranger and Wizard are compared to the other classes.

I admit, I don't like D&D. If you like it, go for it. I am telling you from my experience, D&D will not work adequately "out of the box" for my world, and HERO will. I spent dozens of hours trying to make it work, and it just simply wouldn't. I have played in games using completely GM created worlds that worked great in D&D, and would be a real pain in HERO (mostly due to the high occurance of magic). They both have their merits and flaws (it costs less to be immortal than to be filthy rich, which costs less than a 2d6 HKA (the equivalant of a great sword) in HERO. That makes sense :D )

I did not intend to make this sound like an attack. I firmly believe that any system can handle anything, given enough work and time. But you have to admit that some systems are just better at doing some things than others. For my specific needs for my world, which I had the idea for before I knew HERO existed, HERO works best.

Nightshade

[Nightshade]

These replies are starting to get really long. I should have probably broken that up like tesuji did. Sorry about that.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

I would place all of the classes as part of the D&D system. Why? Because they are in the D&D players handbook.

If you include classes as part of the rules and system then we are no longer comparing system to system but game to system which is rather silly.

In order to compare game to game we would need a HERO fantasy game which currently IIRC does not exist, unless you want to consider the brief western shores thing in FH 4th as being heroes fantasy game. i personally know of no one who jumped on the spell colleges and western shores as their model choice for heroes fantasy rpg.


Originally posted by Nightshade

What you are actually comparing is the d20 system to HERO, not D&D. D&D is the fantasy version of d20. I can't think of a single published work that stated "ignore all of the classes in the PHB, and use these instead" for a d20 fantasy game.

I am not all that versed with the breadth of the fantasy d20 market. i find a lot of the 3rd partty stuff lacking.

The examples i would bring up are WATOC's oriental adventures which produced its own classes and did not use some/many of the dnd classes... specifically i think, not certain but think, all the spellcasters and paladin were dropped and the monk replaced iirc with a new monk. They might have kept the rogue and fighter as is but i think everything else went bye bye and was replaced.

Is that close enough for you to admit the classes are setting?

If not, a very soon out product, Monte Cook's Arcana unearthed will present another fantasy world with "all new classes". It wont, if i understand his pre-release comments use any of the core classes.

is that enough?



Originally posted by Nightshade

1) Statistics

As I mentioned earlier, a person with a 3 STR (i.e. a person with the strength of a three or four year old) has a 12.5%

OK so DND doesn't do arm wrestling as well as you would iike.

Originally posted by Nightshade

2) Skills
d20's skill resolution system is the epitome of randomness. Characters starting out with say a craft skill can make masterwork objects at 2nd level.

But wait, here's a wrinkle. We don't need to roll. I can just take 20. There's no real hurry. I can just do it. No problem! This is, of course, a beginner (an apprentice, basically) in the field.

You have several mechanics just plain wrong here.

a master work item, particularly a painting, will NEVER (i possibly should say almost never) in DND be completed on a single roll. each roll represents an amount of work done and the amount of work required goes up with the value of the item and being masterwork that goes up a lot. without skills of significant note you will not really get a result above about 40 gp and a masterwork painting will be worth a lot more than 40 gp. So you are talking about needing MULTIPLE consecutive 20's or at least consecutive in that you do not get a bad failure in between.

Secondly, since craft skill has a penalty for failure, you are NOT allowed to take 20 on those checks, period, at all.

Perhaps you would be more able to nitpick DND if you knew how it works?

Originally posted by Nightshade

Now lets go to HERO. I have the professional skill: painter, but its the same situation.

I will stop you right there. You seem to be assuming the DND guy had like 1 skill rank so that he needed a 20, is that right? Why would you then equate that with the 2 pt profession at 11- for hero. Wouldn't that be more akin to the familiarity level? or does your example need this skew to be presentable?

Using a familiarity, the odds of s 6- being about 5% indicates that with a familiarity a noteworthy success (made by 2) in ONE ROLL (or alternatively achieving a regular success on a harder skill check where the Gm applied some of the penalties for difficulty listed at the beginning of the skills chapter) is about the same as that 5% figure for the random d20 roll.


Originally posted by Nightshade

I have an 11- roll (in both circumstances, I am ignoring any stat modification). If I want a masterpiece, that is very difficult, so I take a -8 to my roll.

I think perhaps you are equating masterpiece and masterwork as the same thing.

If you wanted a masterpiece along the scale you seem to indicate, then that painting in DND would have a gp values in the high hundreds at least of gp. Lets say 350 gp as a conservative estimate, a similar price increase a masterwork sword has over the normal one. To get 350 gp on a 20 roll you will need 9 rolls of 20 with no rolls below 10 anywwhere in between. Please run those odds.

Again, if you knwo the d20 system, you would be better able to run these "minutia i dont like" examples.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Here's a fun one. Try to make a called shot in D&D using the PHB, DMG, or MM. Sick of trying to find the rules? That's because you can't. That's right.

Lets see, called shots in HERo give you a penalty to hit for more damage...

ever hear of POWER ATTACK?

that in dnd allows you to reduce your to hit by a number up to your combat skill (BAB) and do more damage.

DND does not use any special rules for damage going to specifc locations such as hobbling and such, unless you take feats to do so (though i think some of those feats are in the class books, not the big 3.)

Originally posted by Nightshade

That is, of course, why a chain shirt or a breast plate lowers your overall armor class. I have only met one GM for D&D that stated that they were not going to make some called shot rules, but the concept that you had to do it at all is puzzling.

I wonder at this since most of the HERO games i have seen and many of the FH games i have seen decided not to use them as an overcomplication. I think the notion of randomizing the random damage a second time and pretending it represented called shots was silly. I mean, one of the "roll for damage" aspects was did "you hit a vital spot" and the notion of calling a eye shot, taking a -8, hitting that spot and then rolling a 1 for damage and getting told you had a glancing blow to the eye that did nothing of consequence seemd a bit far fetched.

Originally posted by Nightshade

a) lasoo (this was already mentioned, and as I stated, easily overcome)

Where in the HERO5 book is the lasso weapon statted out? i missed that page.

Originally posted by Nightshade

b) Fencing - Try to make a lightly armored hand to hand fighter in D&D that can survive without magic. It can be done in HERO, and it doesn't take anything more than reading the book.

The DND world is not intended to make "without magic" a viable commodity. Every class and every character is assumed to have and use magic. This is a high magic world. other d20 games which sought to address this have added a base defense bonus and that seems to be working well for them too. off hand i do not know if d20 modern did but i seem to recall it doing so.

you are back to "how i would have preferred the DND setting to be".

Originally posted by Nightshade

c) Bec de Corbins, picks, and crossbows - These were weapons that were specifically designed to penetrate heavy armors. The Bec de Corbin is sometimes called the first can opener. That would be armor piercing in HERO. That would be a pain in the butt in D&D.

Clearly you want more detail than DND provides. DND is not trying to simulate historical weapons accuratley, it is trying to replicate weapons in a fantastic magic filled setting.

BTW if you look at HERO5 weapons, you will also find crossbows IIRC not being armor piercing.

Originally posted by Nightshade

d) Martial arts - HERO has how many manuevers in the base book? 12 or more (I don't have it with me). IIRC, D&D has the monk (the only basic martial artist) with flurry of blows, quivering palm, and ummm... urmm... maybe one other? Real good choices, there. Way to be dramatic.

IIRC hero martial arts provides a series of present maneuvers which allow you to alter your attacks by basically shuffling the scores between things like attack, defense and damage.

In DND and other d20 games, this is acheived by feats such as power attack and expertise (and in other official books all out attack.) other martial artsy feats include improved trip, improved grapple, improved disarm and the like.

you really should read up on these things before going off on how bad you dislike dnd. Your points would be better made if you seemed to know of which you speak.

Originally posted by Nightshade

a) Money - Why is your starting money related in any way to your class? I can understand it with Monk, but any of the others, it simply makes no sense. Why can't I start off with more? Or start off penniless? And then to make it a random roll. Ugh. Again, much easier from HERO, IMO.

because in the setting class ~ profession. Wealth in DND plays a major role, equipment per level is recognized as a balancing factor not a flavor element. In the DND world, money is power not just an FX for power.

HERO works fine for supers, where wealth is downplayed and equipment = power points.

Originally posted by Nightshade

b) Alignment - I stated this before. D&D PHB specifically states that good and evil are forces in the game.

Yes. if you look at ancient cultures, that was often a belief, just like they believed in unicorns and dragons and faeries and trolls.

while i can understand you not necessarily preferring to use that particular belief as a true element, just as you might not want to have dragons in your world, i cannot understand why it would be anything more than a "they chose something different than i would" thing. Where it it written that subjective modern morality is the only ethos that should be played?

Originally posted by Nightshade

(Paladin, Monk).

I removed alingment restriction from monks, and have used monks and have a pc monk in my game. it did not seem to make him more powerful. I kept alignment/religious restrictions for religious spellusers and added it gor those who did not have them... they did not seem to get weaker?

I think you have a nice theory but not any evidence to back it up.


gotta go... more later.

[Nightshade]

"The examples i would bring up are WATOC's oriental adventures which produced its own classes and did not use some/many of the dnd classes... specifically i think, not certain but think, all the spellcasters and paladin were dropped and the monk replaced iirc with a new monk. They might have kept the rogue and fighter as is but i think everything else went bye bye and was replaced."

I would not call Oriental Adventures fantasy. If it were, there would be no demand for Ninja HERO and products like that. I might say it is a subset of fantasy.

"Is that close enough for you to admit the classes are setting?"

No.

"If not, a very soon out product, Monte Cook's Arcana unearthed will present another fantasy world with "all new classes". It wont, if i understand his pre-release comments use any of the core classes.

is that enough?"

Forgotten Realms (a WOTC product), Sword and Sorcery, and Kenzer & Company's world (whose name annoyingly eludes me for the moment) all use the base classes. I have an idea, lets compare books that exist.

"OK so DND doesn't do arm wrestling as well as you would iike. "

Pick any stat based feat, and it works exactly the same. As a matter of fact, pick ANYTHING and it works that way. An 8th level fighter only has +8 to attack over a first level fighter (feats and stats not included). Say they fight a duel to first blood, same situation goes. Compare that to two characters, one of which has 8 combat skill levels more. You see a difference.

"You have several mechanics just plain wrong here.

a master work item, particularly a painting, will NEVER (i possibly should say almost never) in DND be completed on a single roll. each roll represents an amount of work done and the amount of work required goes up with the value of the item and being masterwork that goes up a lot. without skills of significant note you will not really get a result above about 40 gp and a masterwork painting will be worth a lot more than 40 gp. So you are talking about needing MULTIPLE consecutive 20's or at least consecutive in that you do not get a bad failure in between."

The rules have as a requirement for a masterwork item a difficulty of 25. That is the only statement that I can recall (although I don't have the book in front of me).

"Secondly, since craft skill has a penalty for failure, you are NOT allowed to take 20 on those checks, period, at all."

Really? Great. Name a skill that doesn't have any penalty for failure. The first thing that I will note is that if you fail, the difficulty goes up. I would consider that a penalty.

"Perhaps you would be more able to nitpick DND if you knew how it works?"

I would say the same about you.

"I will stop you right there. You seem to be assuming the DND guy had like 1 skill rank so that he needed a 20, is that right? Why would you then equate that with the 2 pt profession at 11- for hero. Wouldn't that be more akin to the familiarity level? or does your example need this skew to be presentable?"

No, to get a 25 skill roll by taking 20 means that they have to have 5 ranks. Hence why they would need to be 2nd level.

"Using a familiarity, the odds of s 6- being about 5% indicates that with a familiarity a noteworthy success (made by 2) in ONE ROLL (or alternatively achieving a regular success on a harder skill check where the Gm applied some of the penalties for difficulty listed at the beginning of the skills chapter) is about the same as that 5% figure for the random d20 roll."

No. There is nothing in D&D that states it, but I would think that a rank of 5 in a skill would be the equivalent of an 11-. I would think that it depends on how you define the 5 ranks. Is that good, beginner, apprentice, what?

"I think perhaps you are equating masterpiece and masterwork as the same thing. "

I am.

"If you wanted a masterpiece along the scale you seem to indicate, then that painting in DND would have a gp values in the high hundreds at least of gp. Lets say 350 gp as a conservative estimate, a similar price increase a masterwork sword has over the normal one. To get 350 gp on a 20 roll you will need 9 rolls of 20 with no rolls below 10 anywwhere in between. Please run those odds."

I am not sure where you are getting these requirement for the multiple rolls. Perhaps if you could site a reference. DMG? If I am wrong, I will admit it, but I need a source.

"Again, if you knwo the d20 system, you would be better able to run these "minutia i dont like" examples."

Combat and skill roll modifiers are minutia?

"Lets see, called shots in HERo give you a penalty to hit for more damage...

ever hear of POWER ATTACK?

that in dnd allows you to reduce your to hit by a number up to your combat skill (BAB) and do more damage."

I understand power attack, and that means very little. The write-up (and even the name) POWER ATTACK means that you are attempting to simply power through their defenses, not do anything with what I would call finesse. HERO has that, too. It is called a haymaker. I would think that very few people would confuse a haymaker with a called shot to an unarmored location.

"I wonder at this since most of the HERO games i have seen and many of the FH games i have seen decided not to use them as an overcomplication. I think the notion of randomizing the random damage a second time and pretending it represented called shots was silly. I mean, one of the "roll for damage" aspects was did "you hit a vital spot" and the notion of calling a eye shot, taking a -8, hitting that spot and then rolling a 1 for damage and getting told you had a glancing blow to the eye that did nothing of consequence seemd a bit far fetched."

If someone did 1 body to the eye, you wouldn't rule that the eye was no longer there? That added no game effect at all?

The random roll for hit location adds two things for a game. First, it makes sectional armor SECTIONAL. The second is it trades the stun lotto (1d6-1 for stun multiplier) for something that (in the hands of the right GM) with a lot more possibility for drama. Instead of having three die rolls (to hit, damage, stun multiplier) you have three die rolls (to hit, damage, and location).

"Where in the HERO5 book is the lasso weapon statted out? i missed that page."

Good point.

"The DND world is not intended to make "without magic" a viable commodity. Every class and every character is assumed to have and use magic. This is a high magic world. other d20 games which sought to address this have added a base defense bonus and that seems to be working well for them too. off hand i do not know if d20 modern did but i seem to recall it doing so."

Again, this has been my point from the beginning. I run a low magic fantasy world. Doing that in D&D is difficult. Not impossible, obviously, but difficult. It is because the D&D Player's Handbook, you know the thing that opens the door to Endless Adventure and purports to have everything you need to do that, assumed high magic.

"you are back to "how i would have preferred the DND setting to be".

How about this for a plan. Make the system books that are required for ANY game using the d20 system have NO setting! I think I know a few... Lets see. Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition, HERO, GURPS. Wait! I know. We are supposed to (of course) assume that the classes in the fantasy d20 book are merely suggestions, along with all of the spells, all of the skills, and the races! After we get done with eliminating all of that, we are left with "roll a d20, add all of the modifiers, see if you overcame the difficulty level." That's what we spent $60 on? I think not.

"BTW if you look at HERO5 weapons, you will also find crossbows IIRC not being armor piercing."

And that always bugged me. I always added it. Of course, that doesn't negate the fact that there is no mechanic for doing so in d20.

"IIRC hero martial arts provides a series of present maneuvers which allow you to alter your attacks by basically shuffling the scores between things like attack, defense and damage.

In DND and other d20 games, this is acheived by feats such as power attack and expertise (and in other official books all out attack.) other martial artsy feats include improved trip, improved grapple, improved disarm and the like."

And these are martial arts manuevers? Oh, I get it. Let's look at some of them. Power attack. Pay a feat, and get a haymaker (a free skill in HERO). That looks like a martial art to me. Expertise. Great. I like more combat skill levels. Sounds like martial arts to me. All out attack. Ah, yes. In a book I've never bought or looked at. Improved trip. Make a trip and not provoke attacks of opportunities, IIRC. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but that doesn't sound very martial arts oriented to me. Improved Grapple. Same. Improved disarm. I agree with you on that one.

Since you brought in the Complete Fighter's Handbook (AKA Sword and Fist), I guess that I can bring in The Ultimate Martial Artist. Let's see, there are 3 different disarms (Martial, Sacrifice and the Ranged one). There are how many different strikes, grapples, etc.? I'm sure that d20's less than 10 feats do the same thing and provide the same flexibility.

"you really should read up on these things before going off on how bad you dislike dnd. Your points would be better made if you seemed to know of which you speak."

You should really learn how to debate before you attempt to do so. One of the first rules is to attack only the argument, not the person. It is not only rude, but tends to make long counterposts.

"because in the setting class ~ profession. Wealth in DND plays a major role, equipment per level is recognized as a balancing factor not a flavor element. In the DND world, money is power not just an FX for power.

HERO works fine for supers, where wealth is downplayed and equipment = power points. "

I disagree. Money in Fantasy HERO is just as important at in D&D, for the same reasons. Money is power no matter what system you are in. However, the SYSTEM should not tell people that they can't be wealthy, just because they are an adventurer. Why can't my wizard be from a wealthy family that gave him a stipend?

"Yes. if you look at ancient cultures, that was often a belief, just like they believed in unicorns and dragons and faeries and trolls.

while i can understand you not necessarily preferring to use that particular belief as a true element, just as you might not want to have dragons in your world, i cannot understand why it would be anything more than a "they chose something different than i would" thing. Where it it written that subjective modern morality is the only ethos that should be played?

I removed alingment restriction from monks, and have used monks and have a pc monk in my game. it did not seem to make him more powerful. I kept alignment/religious restrictions for religious spellusers and added it gor those who did not have them... they did not seem to get weaker?"

If you removed alignment restrictions, many more people would play Paladins. If you didn't remove the alignment restriction from Monks, would as many people in your group play one? Why do you think that is?

"I think you have a nice theory but not any evidence to back it up."

I think that this is amusing because this whole thing started with my agreement with what you said!!!

Nightshade

[Nightshade]

When I made my last post, while reviewing it I noticed that the formatting came out bad (Okay, really bad). How do you quote someone, comment, provide another quote, and comment?

Forgive my ignorance, but I am sort of new at this forum thing (no wonder they call us "Incompetent Normals" at this post level).

Nightshade

[Ndreare]

You will have to use the Qote cammands basicly write "QUOTE" in "[" the enter /QUOTE in "[" at the end of the quote. it will look better that way.

[Markdoc]

heh. I think we have taken this thread as far as we can. Tesuji's position (which I obviously disagree with, but which at least he has stated clearly and politely) is that you can easily customise DnD if you want to run other than the standard settings with the standard classes.

Having tried it, I can only emphatically disagree. Once you start changing classes about, the very basic examples given in 3e carry you only a very, very short distance.

It's only possible to make significant changes to the basic rules without destroying your game if you have:
a) a really comprehensive knowledge of the rules,
b) a good understanding of the largely unwritten and poorly defined metarules behind the system and
c) a really nice, understanding group of players.

I've watched enough DnD campiagns melt down under attempts to mutate the basic system, to see that this is a very common problem. It can be done - I've done it myself when I ran DnD games. But it has NEVER been as simple as with Hero which provides guidelines for doing precisely that.

And that's it really. It's the reason I shifted from Gm'ing DnD to GM'ing Hero. It's not that I don't appreciate having stuff done for me - I experienced a flicker of interest when 3e came out - that died once I got the rulesbooks and realised what would be involved in doing anything I wanted with them (doesn't mean DnD modules aren't full of ideas to plunder, of course).

As for the comment on detail: one of my own game worlds (for an asian fantasy game) is up on the web, so you can check for yourself. In comparison, I'd be mortally embarrassed to have a piece of lort like "Oriental Adventures" purporting to be an asian fantasy setting with my name on it....

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

Nightshade...

regarding a cite to show your almost but not complete lack of understanding of DND craft rules.

from the SRD which makes it easy to copy, though the text is essentially identical to the craft skill in the PHB...

yes, they hid the information from you on how craft skills work in the craft skill description.

Here is the entire skill description. i will bold the portions you missed.

Craft (INT)
Craft is actually a number of separate skills. For instance, the character could have the skill Craft (trapmaking). The character's ranks in that skill don't affect any checks the character happens to make for pottery or leatherworking, for example. The character could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill.
A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something; if it is not, it is a Profession.
Check: The character can practice a trade and make a decent living, earning about half the check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. The character knows how to use the tools of the trade, how to perform the craft's daily tasks, how to supervise untrained helpers, and how to handle common problems. (Untrained laborers and assistants earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.)
However, the basic function of the Craft skill is to allow the character to make an item of the appropriate type. The DC depends on the difficulty of the item created. The DC, the character's check results, and the price of the item determine how long it takes to make the item. The item's finished price also determines the cost of raw materials. (In the game world, it is the skill level required, the time required, and the raw materials required that determine an item's price. That's why the item's price and DC determine how long it takes to make the item and the cost of the raw materials.)
All crafts require artisan's tools to give the best chance of success; if improvised tools are used instead, the check is made with a -2 circumstance penalty. On the other hand, masterwork artisan's tools provide a +2 circumstance bonus.
To determine how much time and money it takes to make an item:
1. Find the DC listed here or have the DM set one.
2. Pay one-third the item's price in raw materials.
3. Make a skill check representing one week's work.
If the check succeeds, multiply the check result by the DC. If the result times the DC equals the price of the item multiplied by 10, then the character has completed the item. (If the result times the DC equals double or triple the price of the item (multiplied by 10), then the character has completed the task in one-half or one-third the time, and so on.) If the result times the DC doesn't equal the price multiplied by 10, then it represents progress the character has made this week. Record the result and make a check for the next week. Each week the character makes more progress until the character's total reaches the price of the item multiplied by 10.
If the character fails the check, the character makes no progress this week. If the character fails by 5 or more, the character ruins half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.
Progress by the Day: The character can make checks by the day instead of by the week, in which case the character's progress (result times DC) is at one tenth the weekly rate.
Creating Masterwork Items: The character can make a masterwork item (an item that conveys a bonus to its use through its exceptional craftsmanship, not through being magical).
To create a masterwork version of an item on the table below, the character creates the masterwork component as if it were a separate item in addition to the standard item.
The masterwork component has its own price and DC. Once both the standard component and the masterwork component are completed, the masterwork item is finished. (Note: The price the character pays for the masterwork component is one-third of the given amount, just as it is for the price in raw materials.)
Repairing Items: Generally, the character can repair an item at the same DC that it takes to make it in the first place. The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth the item's price.
Item Craft DC
---- ----- --
Armor, shield Armorsmith 10 + AC bonus
Longbow, shortbow Bowmaking 12
Composite longbow,Composite shortbow Bowmaking 15
Mighty bow Bowmaking 15 +2/Str bonus
Crossbow Weaponsmith 15
Simple melee or thrown weapon Weaponsmith 12
Martial melee orthrown weapon Weaponsmith 15
Exotic melee orthrown weapon Weaponsmith 18
Very simple item Varies 5
Typical item Varies 10
High-quality item Varies 15
Complex or superioritem Varies 20
In some cases, the "fabricate" spell can be used to achieve the results of a Craft check without the character's needing to make the check. However, the character must make an appropriate Craft check when using the spell to make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, etc.).
A Craft check related to woodworking in conjunction with the casting of the "ironwood" spell enables the character to make wooden items that have the strength of steel.
When casting the spell "minor creation", the character must succeed at an appropriate Craft check to make a complex item, such as a Craft (bowmaking) check to make straight arrow shafts.
Retry: Yes, but each time the character misses by 5 or more, the character ruins half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.

[tesuji]

Regarding Nightshades almost but not complete lack of understanding of DND take 20 rules...

N said

"Really? Great. Name a skill that doesn't have any penalty for failure. The first thing that I will note is that if you fail, the difficulty goes up. I would consider that a penalty."

Can you provide a cite for "fail = dc goes up"? I think in some skill cases there is a penalty, but it is a specific skill thing not a general case.

Lockpicking is a case of a skill where failure carries no penalty. You can retry.

Craft is an example of a skill where failure has a penalty. if you fail by 5 or more, you LOSE materials value in your profuct, you screw up and maend up with more work to do than before you make the skill check.

the relevent portion of the rule from the SRD follows...


In general, the character can try a skill check again if the character fails, and can keep trying indefinitely. Some skills, however, have consequences of failure that must be taken into account. Some skills are virtually useless once a check has failed on an attempt to accomplish a particular task. For most skills, when a character has succeeded once at a given task, additional successes are meaningless.
If a skill carries no penalties for failure, the character can take 20 and assume that the character goes at it long enough to succeed eventually.

book not in front of me for a more accurate PHB page cite.

[tesuji]

Ok i will just handle a few of Nightshades points since this is becoming too much of a chore. teaching DND 101 to the misinformed is just not a career choice i made.

1. In DND the difference between a 1st level fighter and an 8th level fighter taken as just the difference in BAB is a laughable comparison. Feats, characteristic points are a part of the leveling system, not some "other thing" and an 8th level fighter would have 6 more feats and 2 more att points than the first. Also, since wealth is also recognized as a part of balance, wealth in equipment, the AC differences between the two would also be dramatic. As a conservative estimate the 1st level fighter's ac would be around 18 (chain shirt lrg shield dex) and the 8th level fighters would be around 24 or so and this can go as high as 29 from the expertise feat.. if we assume a 16 str to start, the 1st level fighter has a to hit bonus of +5 (focus feat, strength, BAB) which means he hits on a 19-20 or only on a 20 if the other guy uses a little expertise. The 8th level fighter has a to hit bonus of +14/+9 (BAB+8, strength+4, focus, masterwork weapon) and if he uses say 3 expertise then this still leaves him at +11.

When you eliminate all the other benefits that apply into your levels, and just pick out one element and pretend like that one element is the only difference, you might just be able to make the system look like 8 levels vs one level is trivial. When you add in the various elements that actually go into it, it doesn't look that bad.

As for your hero example, the 8 skill levels, there is NOTHING in the rules preventing a beginning PC at either 100 or 150 from having +8 skill levels. There is nothing saying the more experienced fighter has more skill levels at all. This might be the case, or it might not. Right? At least DND gives you significant combat differences as a matter of course.

2. on power attack being brute force... specifically that "I understand power attack, and that means very little. The write-up (and even the name) POWER ATTACK means that you are attempting to simply power through their defenses, not do anything with what I would call finesse."

Once you, the reader, decide to add that interpretaion in, then i can see where you would be reluctant. The actual description and rule says...

"Benefit: On the character's action, before making attack rolls for a round, the character may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed the character's base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage applies until the character's next action. "

again, from the srd.

you asked for how you would do called shot in DND. I cited the feat that allows the same type of mechanic as HERo. If you choose to prefer to dislike the name of the feat and thus dismiss the obvious "take from hit to do better damage" called shot similarity, thats not my problem.

You may choose to not look at it this way, thats fine, albeit, from a HERo background the idea of getting hung up on names and not effects seems rather construed. I mean, would you forbid someone wanting to buy Magentic control as telekinesis in HERO because telekinesis was not called magnetic control? would you disallow someone representing a gun that fires bullets from buying it as energy blast because the name is ENERGY? if not, why not have the same flexibility when thinking DND?

BTW the haymaker is a defense penalty for better damage. Called shots in hero are a penalty to hit for better damage, just like power attack.

"If someone did 1 body to the eye, you wouldn't rule that the eye was no longer there? That added no game effect at all? "

i could certainly HOUSE RULE to add this, but the rules do not make it so. If i wanted this level of house ruling in DND, i could make it swo. It seems odd to keep criticizing DND for not having prebuilt rules for things like this, like crossbows doing ap damage, and so forth when HERo doesn't either.

"How about this for a plan. Make the system books that are required for ANY game using the d20 system have NO setting!"

that is certainly ONE model for publication. Another is "when we sell someone a game, lets give them a game, not a game builder kit. This way, right after buying our product, they have enoguh stuff to actually sit down a play rather quickly and can get into the under the hood stuff AFTER, not before, they have some experience."

While that might not be the model you prefer in your books, the idea of selling a GAME and not ONLY a GAME TOOLKIT has been around for a long time, has been successful too. I doubt it will go away anytime soon, thank god.

On feats as martial arts...

Power attack equates to the various combat maneuvers (no hero book in front of me but say like fast strike or such) where you penalize OCV and gain dcs. Instead of having several such maneuvers, each purchased spearately giving slightly different scales of OCV for DCs trade, you get one feat which gives you the ability to select the amount of "power" vs "accuracy" for each one. You could look at it as for a BAB+8 guy as representing 8 different maneuvers each - ocv lower and 1 damage higher.

Expertise, same thing but with a BAB or 5 limit and to hit goes to defense.

Expertise and Power Attack, now we have the ability to maneuver OCv to DCV or damage. Thats a whole lot more maneuvers.

"If you removed alignment restrictions, many more people would play Paladins. If you didn't remove the alignment restriction from Monks, would as many people in your group play one? Why do you think that is?"

Well since in my game the monk character is still lawful neutral, since i removed the rule after he started playing the monk not as a player request thing but as a change to represent the role i wanted alignments to play, I have to say that it did not seem to have an impact on the number of players wanting to play monks or balance.

In general though, the less restricted a class is, the more character concepts that fit within its scope, and thus the more people who would envision characters that fit within it.

So from that perspective, loosening alignment restrictions works fine. Its does not however, wreck the game or even cause any serious problems, at least not the way I did it.

[tesuji]

Nightshade, I hope that at least some of this has shown you some items to ponder, not the least of which may be that your lack of DND 3e knowledge is hindering your assessment or your ability to convey reasonable arguments comparing the system. I hope you can see that making overly restrictive assumptions about DND like but the name says power so it must be brute force (paraphrase) while being perfectly willing to accept effect based definitions (magnetic control bought by telekinesis or a gun bought as energy blast) in hero is simply a fairly simple and obvious case of applying different standards to judge two different system.

I am not saying DND is better than HERO. if you go back and look i came into this thread disagreeing with the claims about how much better HERO was than DND, specifically in its customization ability.

DND obviously does not seem to be your cup of tea and the problems you find in it whether they be mechanical disagreements or lacks you seem unable or unwilling to deal with while the flaws in hero, even when they are identical like crossbows not being treated specially, you seem to be willing or even anxious to address them.

OK fine, i know i wont change that perspective.

The best i can hope to have accomplished is to give you perhaps the notion that you misunderstood some things in DND or viewed them so restrcitively that perhaps its not as bad as you think if you took the time to actually get familiar with it. I mean, surely even you can think that for instance someone who misread HERo as badly could get some pretty misinformed and erroneous biases against hero.

Regardless, enjoy your games.

[AnotherSkip]

Tesujii One problem with your Ftr 8 Vs ftr 1 there are several ways that that can be screwed with.

One both fighters can lose or *gasp* not be using their equipment.

a bar brawl in a place that forbids weapons and armor. just after having been shipwrecked or at certain points in the very famous modules A1-4 (against the slaver lords)
Or even at any point after having been captutred, stripped, and dumped in a "deathtrap".

Not that uncommon in many games.

and several feats are neutralised by not having weapons or only one opponent(cleave and great cleave, the martial weapon feats or whatever they are called,the weapon finess feat)


However part of the Problem with D&D is that it _assumes_ a "more experienced fighter" is better at combat. Hero assumes a more experienced fighter will be able to do more. not just combat.

If I as a fighter gain a level or two only through social interaction (sorry for the shockin supposition) what exactly have I _really done_ that has advanced me as a fighter? Trained on the side? Well why did I not bother with leveling and just train on the side?

The Assumption is that you will go out and kick arse to get xp to level.

there is no other assumption for the classes.

if you run a high diplomacy/social interaction game you are advancing in areas that are not applicable to combat and combat combat combat games you spend points on skills eventually that do not apply to those things you are learning.

Sorry I prefer a game wherin I can see the metasystem as opposed to one where people arbitrairily decide that Magic Missle is the best first level spell in the game, and contrive to hide the metasystem from the average gamer.

[Nightshade]

Power attack allows you to lower your to hit to increase damage.

Called shot, sword arm. In HERO, that lowers the damage, not increase.

Called shot, foot to pin to the oak floor. In HERO, that lowers the damage, not increase.

You're right, that is exactly the same as Power Attack. :rolleyes:

Okay. I agree with you. The fighter example wasn't too clear. How about I state it this way:

Any character rolling an opposed roll against a character with a skill roll modifier that is 8 higher than the first character (which in my mind is significant) has a 12.5% chance of successfully beating that character at WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY ARE DOING. That, in my mind, is ridiculous. This would be the equivalent of having a 9th level rogue who maxed out a skill being beaten by a 1st level rogue with the same stats maxing out the skill. This includes feats.

It is simply due to the statistics of the die rolling mechanic. The primary flaw with the d20 system mechanic is that the d20 is just too random. It doesn't follow a bell curve, so it is not particularly unusual for a character who by all rights should wipe the walls with you on that skill to lose to a much less skilled character. Be it skill vs skill, a fight, or whatever.




i could certainly HOUSE RULE to add this, but the rules do not make it so. If i wanted this level of house ruling in DND, i could make it swo. It seems odd to keep criticizing DND for not having prebuilt rules for things like this, like crossbows doing ap damage, and so forth when HERo doesn't either.



Of course you don't bring up any of the other armor piercing weapons from my example.

This is my criticism: HERO has a mechanic for called shots, D&D does not. HERO has a mechanic for disabling wounds (which is what the 1 body to the eye example was), D&D does not. This is not a level of house ruling for HERO, this is rules you can start with, and therefore don't have to create it as a house rule.




As for your hero example, the 8 skill levels, there is NOTHING in the rules preventing a beginning PC at either 100 or 150 from having +8 skill levels. There is nothing saying the more experienced fighter has more skill levels at all. This might be the case, or it might not. Right? At least DND gives you significant combat differences as a matter of course.



HERO doesn't give people with higher combat skill levels more combat differences? HERO's ability to do something other than getting a better to hit number doesn't mean that characters get better at combat if they put experience that way?




that is certainly ONE model for publication. Another is "when we sell someone a game, lets give them a game, not a game builder kit. This way, right after buying our product, they have enoguh stuff to actually sit down a play rather quickly and can get into the under the hood stuff AFTER, not before, they have some experience."



Oh, right. That's how WotC did it. They didn't publish a gaming book that referenced other gaming books (look at the leadership feat in the PHB, which puts it in the DMG; or the druid writeup that references the Monster Manual) and then have some of those books released months AFTER the first was published. They certainly give enough information to run Greyhawk in the main books. You can tell by their detailed history and maps they put in the books.

And boy do they let you get under the hood with their system description. I am sure glad that the DMG goes into great detail as to what level to put what ability, especially the abilities that I create. I personally like it when they say "Look at the existing classes and compare."




Power attack equates to the various combat maneuvers (no hero book in front of me but say like fast strike or such) where you penalize OCV and gain dcs. Instead of having several such maneuvers, each purchased spearately giving slightly different scales of OCV for DCs trade, you get one feat which gives you the ability to select the amount of "power" vs "accuracy" for each one. You could look at it as for a BAB+8 guy as representing 8 different maneuvers each - ocv lower and 1 damage higher.

Expertise, same thing but with a BAB or 5 limit and to hit goes to defense.

Expertise and Power Attack, now we have the ability to maneuver OCv to DCV or damage. Thats a whole lot more maneuvers.



Boy. That really sounds like something I read in HERO. Let me think. Wait! I think I know what it is! COMBAT SKILL LEVELS! You're right. They do a wiz-bang job of becoming martial arts. That's why HERO has both.:confused:

I also grow tired of this discussion. Obviously, we will never agree. How about this:

I will agree that D&D is customizable if you spend the time to do it and that I will no longer post anti-D&D posts without having the book in front of me so that I can quote it verbatim. However, you have to agree that HERO makes it easier for a GM to do so because it has a much more open systematic way of doing so.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Tesujii One problem with your Ftr 8 Vs ftr 1 there are several ways that that can be screwed with.

Circumstantial elements can alter the relative balance between different strength characters. That is not a problem but simply an aspect of having more than one metric for gauging "combat strength" reflected in the system.

If i wanted to judge the two characters fighting underwater, the lighter encumbered chain shirt guy might be even superior to the guy in plate armor.



Originally posted by AnotherSkip

However part of the Problem with D&D is that it _assumes_ a "more experienced fighter" is better at combat. Hero assumes a more experienced fighter will be able to do more. not just combat.

Ok so let me get this straight.

When we are in the middle of comparing examples to try to deal with a complaint about how DND does not make a 1st level fighter sufficiently more advanced in combat than an 8th level fighter, we also at the same time have to deal with the claim that it makes them too much combat skill differentiated as a matter of course?

So, DND would need to make them more strongly disparate in their combat abilities and at the same time not make them as disparate in combat capabilities in order to meet your two issues adequately?

That is an interesting set of parameters.

In direct answer to this point, YES, the system does assume that when you take a level in FIGHTER then you are trying to reflect working for that period of time at getting better at fighting.

If you worked at something else, say religious spell work or at social skills and were not working on fighting and want this reflected in your character, DND assumes you will take a level in a class appropriately reflecting your choices.

This works just like in HERO where, if you earned 9 xp from an adventure spent mostly socializing, you CAN choose to spend these developing your social skills or, as long as the GM allows it, you CAN spend them on three more CV levels.

I do not get why this is so hard to get.

A class is not a lifelong pursuit. It is periods of learning. Thats why multiclassing is so easy in 3e. There are very few prohibitions, and those are setting specific, and the penalties for unfavored multiclassing are simple XP penalties, not forbiddances, and many of those are either officially removed (they do not apply for PRCs and some standard classes depending on setting and race) or make great campaign specific setting rules. I use a variant of the favored class system in my games because i was not wanting the greyhawk model.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

If I as a fighter gain a level or two only through social interaction (sorry for the shockin supposition) what exactly have I _really done_ that has advanced me as a fighter? Trained on the side? Well why did I not bother with leveling and just train on the side?

If you want to reflect your fighter's actual work, as defined as what he did during the on-screen time, then you should take a level in the class most applicable to what you did.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

The Assumption is that you will go out and kick arse to get xp to level.

The assumtpion is that thats what most heroes do in their stories of myth and legend and that thats what the vast majority of games run have shown. As such, they give more coverage to that in the XP system but they do not force the advancement to be about that. The xp comes from meeting the challenges your GM defines, whether that means combat, social dynamic or ingenuity is up to him when HE defines the scenario and challenge.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

there is no other assumption for the classes.

Xp comes from challenges. Challenges are defined by the GM.

thus the assumption for what enables you to advance is HIS decision.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

if you run a high diplomacy/social interaction game you are advancing in areas that are not applicable to combat and combat combat combat games you spend points on skills eventually that do not apply to those things you are learning.

So, in the game where you are doing social stuff a lot you would I expect be taking levels in classes with social skills as a focus. It seems silly to want to run a character who does social skill stuff a lot and is good at it and take levels in something entirely different like a class thats primarily fighter.

What would happen in hero if that same character who did all that social stuff kept pouring his XP into strength and combat levels and con and stuff?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Sorry I prefer a game wherin I can see the metasystem as opposed to one where people arbitrairily decide that Magic Missle is the best first level spell in the game, and contrive to hide the metasystem from the average gamer.


If you mean arbitrary as in by whim or caprice, you simply underestimate the designers.

Now pay attention... every time i question a relative value in hero on these boards, i get someone or two or three chiming in with "well a reasonable gm should assign thoise values to fit his campaign."

The math that leads to conclusions in hero is based on two aspects... the core values and the mathematical model.

Both the core values (wall crawling is twice as valuable as water breathing and half as good as invisibility) are determined by judgement, not by equation. They are the very values i am told i can and should change to meet campaign demands.

That means their values are determined by SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT... which is the less derogatory definition of arbitrary.

The core values provided for hero are every bit as arbitrary as those spells defined in DND.

That means the ingredianents provided for your "make a spell" HERo cake recipe are not any better than those for the DND
cake. All are simply the product of reasoned and experienced judgement.

Now, after that, in HERO you also then throw things thru a mathematical blender, the process of which was also determined by judgement. There are plenty of cases which can be cited to show this math model not producing results one would agree with. (heck, one of the most irksome traits among hero gamers is the notion that the build process verifies the result, that if its built right that means its final value is right and sometimes this means EVEN in the face of obvious contradictions. weaker tail, fighting array, and scads of others over the years. The lack of the obvious final stage, result testing, is unbelievable.)

Both systems are arbitrary... one just tries to convince you that more math makes it better.

When hero tells me that a guy with a strength 60 and a strength 30 tail is going to be MORE EXPENSIVE than the same guy with a strength 60 tail, then i do not walk away thinking that math and "some say less arbitrary" system is telling me much of anything at all. When the system designer tells me the preferred way to gain 1-6 points of HEAVILY limited dex is to pay 33% MORE than i would if i just bought 6 regular dex, then i don't get this "less arbitrary" bit at all. What i get is, for all this math, its subjective values fed into an overly complex and inaccurate grading system and... the most important part... even with all the math, if i assume the math is RIGHT... the values it produces wont be "right" unless i by decisions in game design MAKE THEM RIGHT.

I can do better than that using my own experience and judgement and since the final proof comes out based on what I decide to throw at them, all the mounds of math did for me is to take up valuable time.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

The primary flaw with the d20 system mechanic is that the d20 is just too random. It doesn't follow a bell curve,

Hero mythconception 107: the bell curve is what makes things less random.

BUUZZZZ wrong. Care to try for Double jeopoary?

3d6 bell curve is the same thing as rolling a d216. Thats a lot like a d20 except about 10 times as big, 11 times is closer.

The difference in probabilities is solely defined in two distinct aspects.

1. What is the smallest measurable increment. D216 has a smallest increment of a fraction of a percent while d20 stops at 5%. If you thin estimations of less than 5% are within your scope, that judging that this factor or that factor in the shooting of the gun should result in a fraction of a percent difference in chances... then the d216 is for you.

2. The huge determining element is the mapping of results assigned by the system. if you want the shot to be 60% likely to hit then you should assign it a 1-12 success on a d20 and a 11- on 3d6. Its not the fact that X number of die combos falls into 11 that makes the outcome less random, its that you when you assigned the success ranges decided to assign that many results to success. an 8- on 3d6 is every bit as random as a 5- on d20, both occur 25% of the time and both fail 75% of the time, expected results. So to get the probability you want, the degree of randomness you want, you simply choose the appropriate valuve for the DC/skill check.

The huge honking difference in running with the two is that with a d20, you know the probabilities at a glance. each additional point is 5% change. With a 3d6, you have a variable scale.

A magic sword may provide you with a +1 to hit and depending on how good you are then that might mean 5% or it might mean 12.5% under 3d6. The better you are (or the worse you are) the less it matters. A -2 for "treacherous ground" might mean 25% or it might mean much less. Every bonus or penalty i assign does not have a defined number of chances in 216 it changes from pass to fail. it varies.

With a d20, i know that each +1 is another 5% to the chance of success... its one more chance in 20.

I dont know about you, but that makes more sense to me, that i can know how much more chances in X a modifier i apply is producing.


Originally posted by Nightshade

And boy do they let you get under the hood with their system description. I am sure glad that the DMG goes into great detail as to what level to put what ability, especially the abilities that I create. I personally like it when they say "Look at the existing classes and compare."

ME, i feel the DMG went too far in some cases. The worst thing they did with 3 was to publish that troublesome chart of magic item pricing. It seemd to convince people to approach it like hero and figure if they did the math they could turn their comparative

And yes, i think compare tom existing is a better solution.

Originally posted by Nightshade


I will agree that D&D is customizable if you spend the time to do it and that I will no longer post anti-D&D posts without having the book in front of me so that I can quote it verbatim. However, you have to agree that HERO makes it easier for a GM to do so because it has a much more open systematic way of doing so.


We will i guess have to agree to disagree.

I find the weight behind the systemic approach to be mostly worthless and simply cumbersome. Doing the math doesn't gain me anything, because in order for the math to be right i have to SUBJECTIVELY assign accurate starting values for my game and then IN PLAY the accuracy of the results depends solely on whether i script the challenges to make the numbers work.

If i am going to make the numbers work in play by scripting, i did not need the math. I can save time by thinking of it in terms of "how will this play out" and then giving a value and then sticking to it. Can i err on that initial assessment? Sure. But that same initial assessment is the thing which gives HERO its core values. invisibility is twice as valuable as clinging is twice as valuable as water breating is just that subjective assessment.

If you NEED the math, whether you believe in it is irrelevent because sometimes all the math does is provide some weight to back up your choices, then by all means use it. But frankly, if you really feel you need it, then IMO you are likely as not ill qualified to handle your end on the assignment of values and enforcement of vlaues. if you believe you are qualified to make the initial subjective assessments and qualified to make the necessary scripting and challnge decisions to make the numbers play right, then you did not need the math.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Nightshade

and that I will no longer post anti-D&D posts without having the book in front of me so that I can quote it verbatim.
Nightshade

I never asked for this, although i did ask for a rules cite once so i could look up a rule your were apparently misremembering.

I think it would be sufficient if.. when you have a comparative example of mechanics that you wish to use to show how DND does something worse, and when that comparison hinges on and emphasizes a key element such as the likelihood of the outcome, knowing how the DND system determines that outcome, in even the most basic sense of is it a single 20 on a d20 or is it 10 20's with no rolls lower than 10 in between (for instance), would be helpful and would greatly, and i mean greatly, improve your argument's apparent strength. It would make it sound like an informed assessment and not just confusion.

At least, thats how i look at it.

Fortunately, the D20 SRD is online and can be accessed even taken for free, so you dont have to have the DND books or even buy them to see and cite the system. One day perhaps, HERO will be that available and accessible.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by tesuji



Circumstantial elements can alter the relative balance between different strength characters. That is not a problem but simply an aspect of having more than one metric for gauging "combat strength" reflected in the system. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nice of you to make my points for me!
Wealth is a false assumption in D&D.
Indeed most of the magical Items pricings are very very screwed up. and most people _wont_ notice this unless a character painfully points this out. It caused a character death in a campaign I was in.


Originally posted by tesuji



When we are in the middle of comparing examples to try to deal with a complaint about how DND does not make a 1st level fighter sufficiently more advanced in combat than an 8th level fighter, we also at the same time have to deal with the claim that it makes them too much combat skill differentiated as a matter of course?
A class is not a lifelong pursuit. It is periods of learning. Thats why multiclassing is so easy in 3e. There are very few prohibitions, and those are setting specific, and the penalties for unfavored multiclassing are simple XP penalties, not forbiddances, and many of those are either officially removed (they do not apply for PRCs and some standard classes depending on setting and race) or make great campaign specific setting rules. I use a variant of the favored class system in my games because i was not wanting the greyhawk model.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Nooooooo that would be Tesuji not reading the post. the point is that 1. there are few real social classes in AD&D, 2. there is no real suggestion in any of the main books that a character take classes relative to what they have been doing.

Sure a smart Gm can suggest that but in the end it just 1. weakens a character 2. violates character concept 3. grants exteraneous abilities.

Sure you could essentially rewrite every character for each player but then why not play HERO?



Originally posted by tesuji




Both systems are arbitrary... one just tries to convince you that more math makes it better.

When hero tells me that a guy with a strength 60 and a strength 30 tail is going to be MORE EXPENSIVE than the same guy with a strength 60 tail, then i do not walk away thinking that math and "some say less arbitrary" system is telling me much of anything at all. When the system designer tells me the preferred way to gain 1-6 points of HEAVILY limited dex is to pay 33% MORE than i would if i just bought 6 regular dex, then i don't get this "less arbitrary" bit at all. What i get is, for all this math, its subjective values fed into an overly complex and inaccurate grading system and... the most important part... even with all the math, if i assume the math is RIGHT... the values it produces wont be "right" unless i by decisions in game design MAKE THEM RIGHT.

I can do better than that using my own experience and judgement and since the final proof comes out based on what I decide to throw at them, all the mounds of math did for me is to take up valuable time. [/B][/QUOTE]


1. Uhh yeah why dont you show me those specific examples: it could be a case of you not having the eloquence or comprehensive understanding of how to do things in HERO. that could be your fault
frankly a guy with 60 Str and a 30 Str tail could be a Phis lim disadvantage, a disad on his Extra limbs or (real shocker) worth no disad at all if it does not obey the cardinal rule of if a disad is not really a disad then it is worth no points at all. Usually found in BIG BOLD LETTERS in the disadvantages section.

2. Hero is based upon if you spend 15 points for something it is decent, 30 points and it is pretty good and 60 points and it is wonderful. With negating a disadvantage certain system realism disads being in the 10 or less area.
3. Do you have a similar judgement system for AD&D presented in the big three?
I think not.

Im not going to quibble over 5 vs 10 for WB and Clinging. WB just enables you to breathe a different medium, Clinging lets you move in verry difficult ways. WB may save your arse but usually it is a no big deal. Clinging can make certain combats _very difficult_ (sword weilding orcs could have a problem reaching your character on a cavern ceiling 30' above their heads)

HERO is more about buying strengths and playing to them quite different than AD&D. Where most of the time it is about rolling well

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Nice of you to make my points for me!
Wealth is a false assumption in D&D.

I haven't a clue what you think supports that assumption.

In DND, wealth is a metric, a benchmark used to assess character power. If your PC has a lot of wealth in gear above that expected per level, you should raise his "level" for your assessment purposes. if a character has less, you should lower it. Scenarios and such in various DND products show this even more explicitly with somewhat common cases where they list a NCP character as 1 level down from his level for challenge purposes because he has less than nornal gear.

I thought it was good of them to realize that gear had an impact and to use this metric to help bring that to the Gms attention.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Indeed most of the magical Items pricings are very very screwed up. and most people _wont_ notice this unless a character painfully points this out. It caused a character death in a campaign I was in.

If you are referring to custom built ones and that chart the foolishly provided which gave a kind hero-esque build, then i agree. In their defense, they did publish clarifications in which they said it was not intended to be a hero-esque permissive thing but was only to be used after you had decided an item was Ok to get a starting value and emphasized that the comparitive step against current items was still to be done.

in essence, they forgot to tell the DND players that "being built by the chart" is not sufficient and that a final comparitive subjective stage needs to be done.

if you are reffering to the main book items, assuming you use the erratta, all i can say is that i found most of their values to be close to correct. However, like with any price that is supposed to be relative to effectiveness, you MUST adjust these values based on the campaign and its challenges. A campaign focused on an invasion from the elemental plane of fire should increase the value of fire resistance items and chill weapons, for instance. This all comes back to effectiveness being subjective and tied to challenges.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Nooooooo that would be Tesuji not reading the post. the point is that 1. there are few real social classes in AD&D,

That remains true even in DND, which is what we are discussing.

OK, one thing i will repeat again. In the vast majority of heroic myths and legends, action films and stories regarding the fantasy genres, the heroes achieve success over the bad guys by some form of combat. This may come as a shock to you, but in the vast number of scenarios when heroic PCs win over a bad guy, some combat was involved, much like in those films, stories, and myths. (If this so shocks you, then you may need to sit down and catch a breath. I'll wait...)

So when it came to deciding which classes to present in the limited space in the main rulebook, they decided to keep each class with SOME combat capabilities, thinking that even if the adventure involved a lot of guile and subterfuge, there would likely bee some combat and that most of the time combat would be a predominant element. Thus all the main PC classes get some combat aptitude presented.

If you think this all is a silly notion and you do not see combat as a frequent element in adventure fantasy, well, then you probably have more than a smidgen of work ahead.

But again, this is setting. If you want to run a charlemaigne's court campaign where the vast majority of challenges are social, then you need to provide relevent classed. Fortunately, the game does provide you with some NPC classes which the Gm can use or alter to help meet his needs. The expert and the aristocrat (or was it noble?) are two great examples and I do allow these to be taken as PC levels if they wish. Book not in front of me but iirc the noble was almost all skills and social.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

2. there is no real suggestion in any of the main books that a character take classes relative to what they have been doing.

the multiclass rules allow taking any lclass level you want for whatever reason you want, barring GM restrictions and setting restrictions such as paladin or monk reclassing. Do you honestly expect them to throw a list of every possible reason to multiclass? That would be an overwhelmingly long one. isn't it much simpler to leave the reason behind the decision to the people playing?


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Sure a smart Gm can suggest that but in the end it just 1. weakens a character 2. violates character concept 3. grants exteraneous abilities.

I have yet to see a case where gaining a new level in anythiong weakened a character. About the only cases where that would be the case is where some element in the decision violated a restriction and cost him class abilities.

2. I fail to see how taking levels in classes to reflect the actions the character has already taken results in violating character concept. It seems to me that it would enhance it (allowing stats to reflect already performed deeds.)

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Sure you could essentially rewrite every character for each player but then why not play HERO?

For the three players among seven in my current game whose character concepts needed a tweak to the classes, It took moments to do so. The resuklt was a big happy for them.
I consider that worth the few minutes.

Why not play HERO? The list is long but basically it boils down to a ton more work, a much heavier and impactful system, and a learning curve which would, even after my spending a lot of manpower streamlining it as i did last time, scared off some of my current players. Even if i believed this weight and math focus had any substantial benefit (and i don't) the impact on new players would have driven me away from it. One of my players is the wife of another, she is 50 some years old and has never roleplayed before. because of the imopact light system, she pretty much got her character quickly and has out roleplayed most of the veterans. I would not have dropped the weight of hero on her and gotten anywhere.

HERO is a game focused on veterans of the hero game. its not friendly to new players. I value bringing new players into roleplaying and make a determined effort to bring new players into every single game i run along with my veterans.

Don't take my word for it about HERO and new players. look across these boards for discussions of hero lite and sidekick, even with posts from Mr Long himself.

SO, in choosing between playing hero and being willing to take the repeated suggestion to alter classes or create new classes to meet PC needs... i will take the latter.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

1. Uhh yeah why dont you show me those specific examples: it could be a case of you not having the eloquence or comprehensive understanding of how to do things in HERO. that could be your fault

you must not have been on the boards when two different threads and about 3-4 questions on the QnA board went thru this already. Steve Long commented that if one did not like the rules one shouldn't use them, not that the rules were incorrect or the math at error.

Here is an off the cuff repeat of the example.

STR 60
Dex 30
CON 30
BOD 30
Int 10
EGO 10
PRE 10
COM 10
PD 12
ED 6
Stun 75
REC 18
speed 5
end 60

Extra limb tail (60 strength)

This character costs 205 for these traits.

Now if i buy the character with a strength 30 tail he costs MORE...


STR 60 (-1/4 on 30 strength)
Dex 30
CON 30
BOD 30
Int 10
EGO 10
PRE 10
COM 10
PD 12 (6 base and +6 bought*)
ED 6
Stun 75 (60 base and +15 bought)
REC 18 (12 base and +6 bought)
speed 5
end 60

Extra limb tail (30 strength only)

This guy costs 231.

* The cost could be 225 if the GM ruled that the PD from the extra strength was limited to the tail and since he was using called shots this still limited the PD and so PD was 12 base.

Rules to know...
HERO5.112 Limited manipulation which specifically spells out the way to point out extra limbs that use less than the full strength as a -1/4 limit on the STR or DEX.

HERO5.92 under characteristics which specifically states the if the limitation on the primary does not effect the figureds, then you dont get the figureds.

The organic flaw in the hero system shown here is the one i catalog as "buying a lim" where buying some relatively cheap power allows you to take a limit on some other more expensive element of the character, thus resulting in spending a few points to save a lot of points.

This is an accepted practice, a defined organic method in HERO, spelled out yet again precisely in the base rules, and yet the obvious flaws in cost it vreates are obvious.

It isn't my misunderstanding of the HERO rules, it is an error in the hero rules supported by the designer.

I will note that since the time of the original threads and QnA, there has been an addition to the faq that described the limited manipulation as a no point voluntary restriction IF it applies only to some additional limbs but not to other additional limbs.

So if i took weak tail as listed above at 225-231 and gave him a 60 strength tongue in addition to his 30 strength tail, he would get back to 205 points and have 20 points to spend.

If you need me to repeat this with bases i can, but a look in the archives will probably fine it under "a tale of two bases" and the tail questions under a "tale of two tails" iirc.



Originally posted by AnotherSkip

frankly a guy with 60 Str and a 30 Str tail could be a Phis lim disadvantage, a disad on his Extra limbs or (real shocker) worth no disad at all

This is made much more fun by the fact that you started this question with "case of you not having the eloquence or comprehensive understanding of how to do things in HERO. that could be your fault."

The procedure for defining limited manipulation (including weaker strength tails) for extra limbs is precisely and specifically defined on HERO5.112. It calls for a limitation on the strength/dex.

Perhaps it is your not having the eloquence or comprehensive understanding of how to do things in HERO that is preventing you from seeing its faults or understanding how little it actually does.

FWIW... I started GMing hero in ~83 with 3rd edition and have a number of 2nd edition products. I have GMed it more than any other game system using it for supers and fantsy and scifi. i would say conservatively i have run about 12 years of campaigns using hero in that 20 years since i first started. DND is a distant third with about 6, vampire actually being second with around 6. (Most of the time i ran two campaigns as i am now.)

When i speak of the faults of HERO, i do not speak from ignorance. This is not to say I am flawless, and i would no doubt expect those who played HERO5 for more than the 8 months i did before abandoning it are more likely able to pinpoint specific areas than I, but i do research my examples to make sure they are rules correct BEFORE using them (unlike apparently some do with their complaints about DND, a=t least round here.)

By the way, the "buy a lim" organic system error is one of those 'total subset" cases... where the cheaper set contains everything the more expensive set and more. Those are examples of balance errors from the system that are not subjective but simply objective.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

if it does not obey the cardinal rule of if a disad is not really a disad then it is worth no points at all. Usually found in BIG BOLD LETTERS in the disadvantages section.

Yawn. HERO5.112.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

2. Hero is based upon if you spend 15 points for something it is decent, 30 points and it is pretty good and 60 points and it is wonderful. With negating a disadvantage certain system realism disads being in the 10 or less area.

So it claims at least. unfortunately, this is frequently not the case.

Regardless, the "value" of something is primarily determined IN PLAY and by the challenges set for it. If i spend 60 points for 70 swimming and we never meet an aquatic adventure or go under water, then it aint all that wonderful.

If i spend 5 points on water breathing and we go under water a lot because of the atlantean adventure campaign we are in, then that 5 points may well be wonderful, particularly if the campaign nature only allows scuba tank like items for the others as bulky foci.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

3. Do you have a similar judgement system for AD&D presented in the big three?
I think not.

DND does not use a poiint system for most things. It is an effect system using comparitive judgements, not a cost system using "points and formula."

You guys can keep slamming it for not using points, but that sort misses that that is an understood difference right away and that "the points" hero uses are subjectively determined before the math and subjectively enforced in play after the math. Every time you refute a "cost question" with saying that the Gm can or maybe should adjust the base costs for the campaign specifics, you point to how much of a effect-comparitive-judgement system hero is.

You guys keep referring to the math as looking under the hood so you know whats going on, but in truth the subjective-comparitve-judgement system is the "under the hood" or "behind the curtain" for the math!


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Im not going to quibble over 5 vs 10 for WB and Clinging.

WOW, twice the price is not important enough to worry with? Does that include 5 for each d6 of eb vs 10 for each d6 of mental blast? The difference between 1 pd and ED and 2 armor is only 1 point. Can i buy armor at the same cost of PD and ED? its not worth quibbling over, right?

of course, in all these cases that "per unit" cost difference might seem not worth quibbling about when looking at the base cost. it will quickly add up to real points when you start taking more potent abilities, in other words, the BASE COST is worth quibbling about once you start applying that vaunted HERO math.

Say i want spells that provides water breathing (clinging) to all my allies within a certain radius and i start applying it as using area effect (so i dont have to hit each one one by one) and useable by others (say something like 16 more people maybe) then the vaunted hero math tells me (I will roguh out the combined mods as being a +3 advantage) 20 points for the water breathing and 40 points for the clinging.

Now, i really must thank you! One of my points has been that the vaunbted hero SYSTEM depends on the subjective base values to make the math work.

You just dismissed the relative values, base values, for these two as they did not matter enough for you to quibble over. Low and behold, apply the vaunted hero math to create a power from these unimportant base values and now we have a 20 point difference. Thats enough of a difference to buy +2 combat levels (all combat 16 points) and +2 OCV levels with your main attack.

Is that enough for you to quibble over? (hey, 20 points happens to be in the same ballpark as weak tail vs strong tail shown above.)

The base power costs in HERO are VITAL to the system. They are not "things not worth quibbling over." They are the foundation upon which the rest is built.

Barage in garbage out, as they say.

The key thing that HERO players who play the arbitrary card whenever they want is that these values are "arbitrarily" or rather subjectively assigned and should be assigned varying from campaign to campaign based on the challneges expected to be presented. (Then of course comes the in play enforcement.)


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

HERO is more about buying strengths and playing to them quite different than AD&D. Where most of the time it is about rolling well


WOW, now thats a wonderfully unsupported parting shot.

Well done. it speaks volumes about your position.

[AnotherSkip]

I dont have the quotes set up right so just deal with it.


Originally posted by tesuji


The assumtpion is that thats what most heroes do in their stories of myth and legend and that thats what the vast majority of games run have shown. As such, they give more coverage to that in the XP system but they do not force the advancement to be about that. The xp comes from meeting the challenges your GM defines, whether that means combat, social dynamic or ingenuity is up to him when HE defines the scenario and challenge.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Right so you mr. I have rewritten much of 3rd edition are a follow the crowd kinda guy just like me? suuure.


Originally posted by tesuji

I haven't a clue what you think supports that assumption.

In DND, wealth is a metric, a benchmark used to assess character power. If your PC has a lot of wealth in gear above that expected per level, you should raise his "level" for your assessment purposes. if a character has less, you should lower it. Scenarios and such in various DND products show this even more explicitly with somewhat common cases where they list a NCP character as 1 level down from his level for challenge purposes because he has less than nornal gear.

I thought it was good of them to realize that gear had an impact and
to use this metric to help bring that to the Gms attention.

[/B]

Im not sure how you would define a naked 16th level fighter vs 12 Tuckers Kobolds as being a no xp situation. I cannot see how the D&D system could get so convoluted as to assume that every person has all of their monetary value on them at all times in good order. Most campaign situations i have been in the Gm strives, yes strives mightily, to remove the wealth factor from players in order to "challenge" them.

and that wealth beomes a mighty crutch. Heavily Experienced AD&D players look to their magical items first and Spells/feats second, attributes third then possibly Skills to get them out of a situation. There are so few skills it is not even funny.

Hero charactes typically Look at Skills, Powers(which includes Spells Feats and racial abilities) and maybe magical items if they have them.

So what happens to the poor player who doesnt realise he needs some of the important skills untill third or later level. Play catchup?

Pretty difficult to do in 3rd.



Originally posted by tesuji

If you are referring to custom built ones and that chart the foolishly provided which gave a kind hero-esque build, then i agree. In their defense, they did publish clarifications in which they said it was not intended to be a hero-esque permissive thing but was only to be used after you had decided an item was Ok to get a starting value and emphasized that the comparitive step against current items was still to be done.

in essence, they forgot to tell the DND players that "being built by the chart" is not sufficient and that a final comparitive subjective stage needs to be done.

if you are reffering to the main book items, assuming you use the erratta, all i can say is that i found most of their values to be close to correct. However, like with any price that is supposed to be relative to effectiveness, you MUST adjust these values based on the campaign and its challenges. A campaign focused on an invasion from the elemental plane of fire should increase the value of fire resistance items and chill weapons, for instance. This all comes back to effectiveness being subjective and tied to challenges.

[/B]

Ah, so you agree that the publishers of D&D 3RD are fools? why thank you. Id better not buy anything of theirs then or anything based upon thier system! thank you very much you just saved me alot of money. Yes Im being sarcastic. big surprise there.

Anyways so the whole system Still needs to be judged upon relative merits just like Hero?


Originally posted by tesuji

That remains true even in DND, which is what we are discussing.

OK, one thing i will repeat again. In the vast majority of heroic myths and legends, action films and stories regarding the fantasy genres, the heroes achieve success over the bad guys by some form of combat. This may come as a shock to you, but in the vast number of scenarios when heroic PCs win over a bad guy, some combat was involved, much like in those films, stories, and myths. (If this so shocks you, then you may need to sit down and catch a breath. I'll wait...)

So when it came to deciding which classes to present in the limited space in the main rulebook, they decided to keep each class with SOME combat capabilities, thinking that even if the adventure involved a lot of guile and subterfuge, there would likely bee some combat and that most of the time combat would be a predominant element. Thus all the main PC classes get some combat aptitude presented.

If you think this all is a silly notion and you do not see combat as a frequent element in adventure fantasy, well, then you probably have more than a smidgen of work ahead.

But again, this is setting. If you want to run a charlemaigne's court campaign where the vast majority of challenges are social, then you need to provide relevent classed. Fortunately, the game does provide you with some NPC classes which the Gm can use or alter to help meet his needs. The expert and the aristocrat (or was it noble?) are two great examples and I do allow these to be taken as PC levels if they wish. Book not in front of me but iirc the noble was almost all skills and social.

[/B]

OKies lets _NOT_ bring in NPC Sh***T classes, okies? I have a LOoooooong History of having a biiiig B*t*h about the stupidities of the "great and Noble division" between PC and NPC.

There also is a huge difference between _some_ combat capacity and heavy combat. all of the classes have significant heavy combat capacity. Try to deny it and ill laugh at you. Heck D&D is worried about armor for Mages, what a loon.

This Decision by the makers to have hack and slash classes (yes that is what they really are)is problematic. Frequently an author (totally different medium) uses combat to bring uncertanity and excitement to the adventure. The more complex books with better writers can write adventures without resorting to violence. or by making the violence something to not only be avoided if possible but entirely worthless and detrimental to the missions.... in essecnce violence is not necessary to the story or plot at all and could be done away with.

D&D has chosen an entirely different path. to get XP you need to face 13.3 equal rating challenge threats to "gain a level"... talk about a cold blooded points system. Now then it does not matter if these 13.3 apply to the quest or story line or not or even if the gm plays these threats appropriately. If a party of charcters at 12th level have a problem dealing with a pack of Kobolds and finally through a significant effort overcome the nasty buggers they are worth no xp. according to cannon 3RD. I much prefer the threatless system of Hero wherein the Gm determines how much challenge the players faced and awards xp based upon that and not some "written law" of xp awards based upon an unforgiving system of irregardless of whether or not tactically the gm can whip some poor players into a puddle..


Originally posted by tesuji

the multiclass rules allow taking any lclass level you want for whatever reason you want, barring GM restrictions and setting restrictions such as paladin or monk reclassing. Do you honestly expect them to throw a list of every possible reason to multiclass? That would be an overwhelmingly long one. isn't it much simpler to leave the reason behind the decision to the people playing?


I have yet to see a case where gaining a new level in anythiong weakened a character. About the only cases where that would be the case is where some element in the decision violated a restriction and cost him class abilities.

2. I fail to see how taking levels in classes to reflect the actions the character has already taken results in violating character concept. It seems to me that it would enhance it (allowing stats to reflect already performed deeds.)

For the three players among seven in my current game whose character concepts needed a tweak to the classes, It took moments to do so. The resuklt was a big happy for them.
I consider that worth the few minutes.

Why not play HERO? The list is long but basically it boils down to a ton more work, a much heavier and impactful system, and a learning curve which would, even after my spending a lot of manpower streamlining it as i did last time, scared off some of my current players. Even if i believed this weight and math focus had any substantial benefit (and i don't) the impact on new players would have driven me away from it. One of my players is the wife of another, she is 50 some years old and has never roleplayed before. because of the imopact light system, she pretty much got her character quickly and has out roleplayed most of the veterans. I would not have dropped the weight of hero on her and gotten anywhere.

HERO is a game focused on veterans of the hero game. its not friendly to new players. I value bringing new players into roleplaying and make a determined effort to bring new players into every single game i run along with my veterans.

Don't take my word for it about HERO and new players. look across these boards for discussions of hero lite and sidekick, even with posts from Mr Long himself.

SO, in choosing between playing hero and being willing to take the repeated suggestion to alter classes or create new classes to meet PC needs... i will take the latter.

[/B]

ok Lets face this you like a fiat system, frankly I have seen fiats abused more often than not, also I find it real difficult to rules lawyer a gm into doing stuff in the hero system. 3RD is a piece of cake to rules lawyer.

3RD also habitually brings out the worst in people IMNSHO. look at the people on the WOTC board and the munchkin flamewars. Heck look at Artucks personality. Ever wonder why a sweet guy like that became the guy he is today? AD&D.

Sure people are frightened of our rep unfairly given to us by D&D players. The same ones who moan about the points, the math etc.
and really cant see the freedoms we are insituting. so sorry bud. When was the last time you could make a spell do something new on the fly? My answer is HERO 5th Edition, so far it cannot be D&D.


Originally posted by tesuji

you must not have been on the boards when two different threads and about 3-4 questions on the QnA board went thru this already. Steve Long commented that if one did not like the rules one shouldn't use them, not that the rules were incorrect or the math at error.

Here is an off the cuff repeat of the example.

STR 60
Dex 30
CON 30
BOD 30
Int 10
EGO 10
PRE 10
COM 10
PD 12
ED 6
Stun 75
REC 18
speed 5
end 60

Extra limb tail (60 strength)

This character costs 205 for these traits.

Now if i buy the character with a strength 30 tail he costs MORE...


STR 60 (-1/4 on 30 strength)
Dex 30
CON 30
BOD 30
Int 10
EGO 10
PRE 10
COM 10
PD 12 (6 base and +6 bought*)
ED 6
Stun 75 (60 base and +15 bought)
REC 18 (12 base and +6 bought)
speed 5
end 60

Extra limb tail (30 strength only)

This guy costs 231.

* The cost could be 225 if the GM ruled that the PD from the extra strength was limited to the tail and since he was using called shots this still limited the PD and so PD was 12 base.

Rules to know...
HERO5.112 Limited manipulation which specifically spells out the way to point out extra limbs that use less than the full strength as a -1/4 limit on the STR or DEX.

HERO5.92 under characteristics which specifically states the if the limitation on the primary does not effect the figureds, then you dont get the figureds.

The organic flaw in the hero system shown here is the one i catalog as "buying a lim" where buying some relatively cheap power allows you to take a limit on some other more expensive element of the character, thus resulting in spending a few points to save a lot of points.

[/B]

OKies lesse first off ill Quote Steven Long You have done quoted his writings plenty plenty allready so lessee : Dont get too worked up over
how to buy thnigs in the Hero System, or is it there is no one right way to do things in the Hero system.

either or it does not really matter.
First off lets find out what you are trying to do.
the underlying philosophy to HERO (which D&D severly lacks IMNSHO) can be summed up very many different ways but the way I like to think of it is you get what you concieve for.

For example I can think of several different ways to build the character.
the first issue is not the points but the concept. From the way you are trying to mechanically limit the character it looks like you are not going for a Scorpion or Doc Ock Character but rather a Nightcrawler/devil character. Good you have a concept.

Now then you are trying to put the limit on the Str. How limiting is the limit on the actual Strength? Not very. In fact it could be argued that it is not at all limiting. Okies so with all four of your normal limbs you have 60 STR and with your tail (and tail only) you anly have 30STR. How is that really a limit? It is none IMNSHO. The real question is what is being limited here? The Tail. Yes the tail is limited here, not the Str. now then there are two ways to limit the character concerning the tail witout applying them to STR.

1. -1/4 limit on the Extra limbs power defined as .Tail only can use half strengthTail can only use 30 or half strength. points total drops from 205 cost to 204 (Yay your character is cheaper for not being very limited.)

2. a five point phisical limit (Inf, Minor) tail only uses half Str.

Frankly i would use that limit on a stat only in cases wherein i was building a tail that was significantly stronger/more agile than the rest of the body.

You are less limited by the rules and only your own imagination than in 3RD.


Also Steve Has to watch out for rules lawyering punks who want to munchkin the rules. That is the main reason why we have such harsh and sometimes what appears to be unreasonably inflexible rules. Being really strong means many thnigs.


Originally posted by tesuji

This is an accepted practice, a defined organic method in HERO, spelled out yet again precisely in the base rules, and yet the obvious flaws in cost it vreates are obvious.

It isn't my misunderstanding of the HERO rules, it is an error in the hero rules supported by the designer.

I will note that since the time of the original threads and QnA, there has been an addition to the faq that described the limited manipulation as a no point voluntary restriction IF it applies only to
some additional limbs but not to other additional limbs.

[/B]


Originally posted by tesuji

procedure for defining limited manipulation (including weaker strength tails) for extra limbs is precisely and specifically defined on HERO5.112. It calls for a limitation on the strength/dex.

[/B]


Originally posted by tesuji


Perhaps it is your not having the eloquence or comprehensive understanding of how to do things in HERO that is preventing you from seeing its faults or understanding how little it actually does.

FWIW... I started GMing hero in ~83 with 3rd edition and have a number of 2nd edition products. I have GMed it more than any other game system using it for supers and fantsy and scifi. i would say conservatively i have run about 12 years of campaigns using hero in that 20 years since i first started. DND is a distant third with about 6, vampire actually being second with around 6. (Most of the time i ran two campaigns as i am now.)

When i speak of the faults of HERO, i do not speak from ignorance. This is not to say I am flawless, and i would no doubt expect those who played HERO5 for more than the 8 months i did before abandoning it are more likely able to pinpoint specific areas than I, but i do research my examples to make sure they are rules correct BEFORE using them (unlike apparently some do with their complaints about DND, a=t least round here.)

By the way, the "buy a lim" organic system error is one of those 'total subset" cases... where the cheaper set contains everything the more expensive set and more. Those are examples of balance errors from the system that are not subjective but simply objective.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by tesuji



Regardless, the "value" of something is primarily determined IN PLAY and by the challenges set for it. If i spend 60 points for 70 swimming and we never meet an aquatic adventure or go under water, then it
aint all that wonderful.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Uhmmm, Yeah, riiiight try looking at maps of every major city in the world most have some sort of water way inthem. I can get from Denver to Dallas dangably fast w/ 124" NCM. Crossing the Rockies/most mountain ranges would be tough admittedly, but then it is not the perfect form of movement either (nothing is ).
Swimming gives you access to over 75% of the earth's Surface plus a ton beneath it.


Originally posted by tesuji


If i spend 5 points on water breathing and we go under water a lot because of the atlantean adventure campaign we are in, then that 5 points may well be wonderful, particularly if the campaign nature only allows scuba tank like items for the others as bulky foci.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually your argument right here is proof positive that water breathing is priced right. Many settings (like Hudson city, Gotham, NYC, Metropolis, Houston, anything on the Great Lakes and many others) have major waterways or are right on the edge of an ocean or what not. Classic villian scene: bad guys blow up a dam. Even Supes with his Flight vs you and your waterbreathing and Swimming you will be in much better shape to deal with sub aquatic villians and major plots around water than old Supes. 62"move VS 15" at best for flying underwater IIRC(both placed at 60 points spent) 62" vs 30" on the surface. If the Gm can't/won't let your character shine by having some fun things happen around that you can deal with better than others then that is more the Gm's fault than "the points"? isn't it?


Originally posted by tesuji


DND does not use a poiint system for most things. It is an effect system using comparitive judgements, not a cost system using "points and formula."
[/B][/QUOTE]

However the point system ties in all of the HERO mechanics into a simple format. How cumbersom would it be to have 10 different mechanics for building a character and how would you exchange values for them?
the Problem with ANY D&D system is that _all_ of the mechanics are separate, and are _all_ point systems. A spell cannot be bought with hitpoints, a feat does not equate a stat increase many of the levels are "Blanks" to build up to better levels and the thing is you have to follow the same road to get anywhere.
Too much multiclassing is a bad thing.


Originally posted by tesuji


You guys can keep slamming it for not using points, but that sort misses that that is an understood difference right away and that "the points" hero uses are subjectively determined before the math and subjectively enforced in play after the math. Every time you refute a "cost question" with saying that the Gm can or maybe should adjust the base costs for the campaign specifics, you point to how much of a effect-comparitive-judgement system hero is.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually If you really want me to slam AD&D3Rd I will, here goes:

Not enough Social systems to handle a real society.

the challenge factor (ever heard of Tuckers Kobolds? Direct problem with cf 's).

Wealth being tied directly to Class levels but not influencing Monsters

NPC only Classes. Don't _EVEN_ BRING THIS ONE UP IT HAS BEEN A SORE POINT SINCE 1ST ED AD&D WITH ME. IF A GM CAN'T CHALLENGE/BEAT A PARTY WITH THE STUFF THE PLAYERS CAN BE/DO THEN HE SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING A CAMPAIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry verry old problem.

Combat intensive system, especially the rewards system.

Tower Shields

Index System

Attitude written in the book.

Points or no points 3RD has problems. They have slowly solved some problems but since what 2-3 years ago they released 3 now they are releasing 3.5 and they now want more money out of me for being stupid and buying their krap in the first place? Uh no.



Originally posted by tesuji


You guys keep referring to the math as looking under the hood so you know whats going on, but in truth the subjective-comparitve-judgement system is the "under the hood" or "behind the curtain" for the math!

[/B][/QUOTE]

And HERO is more open than the D&D system, heckaroonie it wasn't until much later (just pre 3.5 press release ) that I found out that Magic Missle is supposed to be the "best first level spell in the game" period end of sentence. HERO at least suggests you think about what the hell you are doing when you play with the system.
What curtains do i have to look behind to find out that fact in 3RD?
At least with some math rather than a fiat based system I can relativistically change things and have some concept of making them make sense. If I take MB and make it cost 5 points per level I dang well need to make MD _at least_ as common as ED or PD, adding it into Armor and Force Field would also not be a bad idea. even going so far as to add range mods and other quirkyness. Uhm where in 3RD is there a real discussion of adding new stats and creating new powers and what you need to do to concern yourself with game balance?


Originally posted by tesuji


WOW, twice the price is not important enough to worry with? Does that include 5 for each d6 of eb vs 10 for each d6 of mental blast? The difference between 1 pd and ED and 2 armor is only 1 point. Can i buy armor at the same cost of PD and ED? its not worth quibbling over,
right?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Sure I'd let ya have "Armor" of 1 PD and ED _non resistant_ and you can call it "Armor". _NOW_ that you are arguing about red apples and not quite so red apples here is _exactly_ where your argument breaks down. All of the above examples like EB vs MB, Armor vs PD and ED, you get something extra for those points with Armor you get resistant defenses, those defenses (and many others) suddenly apply with but a single point of resistant defense. a MB will affect many things and has many more advantages that an EB does/will not. Is it worth twice the price? quite possibly. In fact arguably so since _at the least_ MB is an AVLD attack.
Straw man knocked down.


Originally posted by tesuji


of course, in all these cases that "per unit" cost difference might seem not worth quibbling about when looking at the base cost. It will quickly add up to real points when you start taking more potent abilities, in other words, the BASE COST is worth quibbling about once you start applying that vaunted HERO math.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Aha! Im seeing part of your problem, you are talking about two different things
You are really talking about a Movement based power vs. a Life support. You are simpy taking a comparing of things that in some ways don't really compare. The more movement based powers you have the better clinging gets. Clinging gets enhanced _by_ other things.
WB typically does not get enhanced by other things. Now then in the grand scope of things WB is worth less than SCB? I would think so since there are many things that SCB protects against that WB would not. is SCB =to Clinging in most cases, yes. The ability to survive most environments vs the ability to execute certain difficult movement manuvers is probably approximately the same. is Clinging worth 5 points of flight? quite possibly, in fact probably so. You get certain defenses vs having no need to rely upon surfaces.

Now you are going to try to prove me wrong by pointing out exceptions, well there are exceptions to 3RD being right too. Clinging and WB abilities don't compare in 3RD either. There is a reason why there has never been a mass Spider Climb Spell without the Spider Climb spell disadvantages. It is too powerful for the limits of the D&D system, any version. Heck even the name is a misnomer it should be Sticky Climb, not Spider Climb(read the spell). There is a reason why there has not been a mass WB spell or SCB.

Wow I can build an argument that you are wrong. :)
Straw man Knocked down.


Originally posted by tesuji


Say i want spells that provides water breathing (clinging) to all my allies within a certain radius and i start applying it as using area effect (so i dont have to hit each one one by one) and useable by others (say something like 16 more people maybe) then the vaunted hero math tells me (I will roguh out the combined mods as being a +3 advantage) 20 points for the water breathing and 40 points for the clinging.

You just dismissed the relative values, base values, for these two as they did not matter enough for you to quibble over. Low and behold, apply the vaunted hero math to create a power from these unimportant base values and now we have a 20 point difference. Thats enough of a difference to buy +2 combat levels (all combat 16 points) and +2 OCV levels with your main attack.

Is that enough for you to quibble over? (hey, 20 points happens to be in the same ballpark as weak tail vs strong tail shown above.)

The base power costs in HERO are VITAL to the system. They are not "things not worth quibbling over." They are the foundation upon which the rest is built.

Barage in garbage out, as they say.

The key thing that HERO players who play the arbitrary card whenever they want is that these values are "arbitrarily" or rather subjectively assigned and should be assigned varying from campaign to campaign based on the challneges expected to be presented. (Then of course comes the in play enforcement.)

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm lessee, lets negate the cost differential by upgrading WB to SCB. Now I have a choice between giving the ability to my friends the abilty to through superior tactics use terrain and avoid traps and thereby negate the advantages of or create a disadvantage for others, vs the ability to ignore poison gas attacks, being strangled/suffocated etc. WB would do half that, and would allow a retreat into water, Hmmm seems pretty fair to me. Yep your argument is sure solid. Clinging _IS_ twice as effective as WB, why thank you for proving our system with all of your hard work.


Originally posted by tesuji


WOW, now thats a wonderfully unsupported parting shot.

Well done. it speaks volumes about your position.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Why thank you !!!

I try

BTW Waterdeep is a major City in Forgotten Realms Setting, you might have heard of it. One of the big three settings being pushed upon hapless players and Gm's by D&D?

Last shots: D&D is an absolute system.
Hero is a non-abasolute system.

Learn the difference, Hero aint for everyone, neither is D&D. Stop trying to push your Crack at me and ill try to do the same.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

I dont have the quotes set up right so just deal with it.

Apparently. Tho if you need help with that as well i can be of service there too. In the mean time, until you get the hang of it, i can clean it up some. No biggie.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Right so you mr. I have rewritten much of 3rd edition are a follow the crowd kinda guy just like me? suuure.

All in all i don't think i will be rushing out to claim being like you in any way.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Im not sure how you would define a naked 16th level fighter vs 12 Tuckers Kobolds as being a no xp situation. I cannot see how the D&D system could get so convoluted as to assume that every person has all of their monetary value on them at all times in good order.

It doesn't.

It uses the assumption of a standard wealth level for standard CR. it then adjusts CR/EL for circumstances which make it harder or easier.

If you had actually read the section you misquoted, you would have already seen me reference adjusting CR up or down for more/less than standard equipment as already being used in DND products.

They do not assume every encounter will be the same, they just establish a benchmark, give you pointers on elements which adjust it and go from there.

So, for example, a naked high level guy would go way down in estimated level. A gang of many kobolds with good equipment and significant positional and situational advantages would go way up. It would likely not be a no xp situation if the gm assessed the elements correctly.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Most campaign situations i have been in the Gm strives, yes strives mightily, to remove the wealth factor from players in order to "challenge" them.

Thats covered by the situational adjustments. They have even published adventures where they adjust CRs because of low equipment for reasons similar to the ones you describe. The system you seem to be complaining about already addresses this issue.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

and that wealth beomes a mighty crutch. Heavily Experienced AD&D players look to their magical items first and Spells/feats second, attributes third then possibly Skills to get them out of a situation. There are so few skills it is not even funny.

In my experience, the degree of importance between gear and skills and powers is dependent on how they are handled in campaign (do you pay points for gear or is it finders keepers) and the importance the GM makes skills have in play. DND like heroic level HERO system does not make gear cost anything and is finders keepers. Like HERo it then comes down to the GM to make the relative importance show in play.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Hero charactes typically Look at Skills, Powers(which includes Spells Feats and racial abilities) and maybe magical items if they have them.

I imagine they do IF the GM makes those items the answers to the challenges. I also imagine they make items the importance if the GM does. Same as in DND.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

So what happens to the poor player who doesnt realise he needs some of the important skills untill third or later level. Play catchup?

i suppose that once the CHARACTER decides to work in a field he begins to do so and accumulate proficiency, yes.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Pretty difficult to do in 3rd.

Not at all.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Ah, so you agree that the publishers of D&D 3RD are fools? why thank you. Id better not buy anything of theirs then or anything based upon thier system! thank you very much you just saved me alot of money. Yes Im being sarcastic. big surprise there.

You now seem to just be ranting? is the froth in the keyboard an issue for you or do you have a keyboard guard?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

OKies lets _NOT_ bring in NPC Sh***T classes, okies? I have a LOoooooong History of having a biiiig B*t*h about the stupidities of the "great and Noble division" between PC and NPC.

Uhh.. so you do not feel you can discuss those elements without slipping into profanity? IS this perhaps a discussion you should not really be involved in, with that control problem?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

There also is a huge difference between _some_ combat capacity and heavy combat. all of the classes have significant heavy combat capacity. Try to deny it and ill laugh at you.

Now thats a wonderful discussion element!

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

This Decision by the makers to have hack and slash classes (yes that is what they really are)is problematic. Frequently an author (totally different medium) uses combat to bring uncertanity and excitement to the adventure. The more complex books with better writers can write adventures without resorting to violence. or by making the violence something to not only be avoided if possible but entirely worthless and detrimental to the missions.... in essecnce violence is not necessary to the story or plot at all and could be done away with.

Absolutely, but in mosy cases in the genre of fantasy, it isn't. The answer to the problem wasn't reaching an accord with the medusa and developing stronger relationships through understanding and embracing their cultural differences, it was finding out how to vut her head off without getting killed. Then that head was used as a weapon. Blinding the cyclops so he wouldn't eat you was the answer.

Anyway, its up to the GM to determine the challenges appropriate for his PCs. The fact that they realize their are more commonly in the genre combat oriented solutions does not seem like a misconnect to the genre, either in gaming, film, or lit or legend.

Maybe it seems that way to you?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

D&D has chosen an entirely different path. to get XP you need to face 13.3 equal rating challenge threats to "gain a level"... talk about a cold blooded points system. Now then it does not matter if these 13.3 apply to the quest or story line or not or even if the gm plays these threats appropriately. If a party of charcters at 12th level have a problem dealing with a pack of Kobolds and finally through a significant effort overcome the nasty buggers they are worth no xp.

Thats just so wrong. If the kobolds are in a situation which raises the El of the encounter to be a serious threat, then there is XP.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

ok Lets face this you like a fiat system,

if by fiat you mean a system where GM judgement and reason are the fundamental driving forces instead of points, yup.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

frankly I have seen fiats abused more often than not, also I find it real difficult to rules lawyer a gm into doing stuff in the hero system. 3RD is a piece of cake to rules lawyer.

I am fairly sure that both systems rely a whole lot of the GM for balance. Without classes and things broken down by development paths, HERo actually seems to me to need more GMing to maintain a semblance of balance. TMMV.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

3RD also habitually brings out the worst in people IMNSHO.

That seems to be true in your case. At least, i hope the almost rabid frothing at the mouth side you seem to be showing here is not your more widespread persona.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

look at the people on the WOTC board and the munchkin flamewars. Heck look at Artucks personality. Ever wonder why a sweet guy like that became the guy he is today? AD&D.

Heck, here i thought it was orbital mind control sattelites. or was it the devil that made him do it?

How far removed from the fringe "RPGs are the devils work" anti-gaming religious zealots are you when you make comments about how AD&D making peoples personalities into this or that?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Sure people are frightened of our rep unfairly given to us by D&D players. The same ones who moan about the points, the math etc. and really cant see the freedoms we are insituting. so sorry bud. When was the last time you could make a spell do something new on the fly? My answer is HERO 5th Edition, so far it cannot be D&D.

That would be called metamagic in DND 3e, where for instance on the fly my sorcerer changes his fireball into an ice ball so it can affect the red dragon.

The first one was AD&D about 18 years ago when we added that ability to one of the mage classes as a SETTING element of the campaign.

In any game where when a GM decides that type of magic is appropriate for his campaign.

Now, i know very little about AD&D 2e, but i seem to recall there being wild mages who could do wierd stuff. I also know that in Monte Cooks upcoming July release it will include variable effects for spells.

Now for the good part... it would not be in the spell colleges system for FH4th.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

First off lets find out what you are trying to do.

Ok i will snip the stuff here.

When i made a comment about examples where the hero math fails, you started pondering if i did not know how to use it.

So i quote a specific example and a specific rule cite which exactly tells you how to do the precise thing.

Now to refute this claim on how HERo did something, you just want to ignore that RULE. That rule is not a setting element. Its a mechanical rule of the accounting system.

Understand, i find that not uncommon at all.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

For example I can think of several different ways to build the character.

I imagine you can, but only one of them is defined precisely by the rules on HERO5.112.

HERo is indeed the perfect system when you refuse to count any of the cases where it isn't.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Now then you are trying to put the limit on the Str. How limiting is the limit on the actual Strength?

By the rule on HERO5.112, -1/4.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Frankly i would use that limit on a stat only in cases wherein i was building a tail that was significantly stronger/more agile than the rest of the body.

Thats fine, sounds like a wonderful house rule you have there to correct the error in the rules.

So it seems we have both agreed that the rule on HERO5.112 is in error. Cool. How do you feel about the partial coverage base rule?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

You are less limited by the rules and only your own imagination than in 3RD.

Not hardly.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Also Steve Has to watch out for rules lawyering punks who want to munchkin the rules. That is the main reason why we have such harsh and sometimes what appears to be unreasonably inflexible rules.

OK see that would make sense, even sound reasonable, except that the example at work here following Steve's rules makes the stronger character cheaper than the weaker character. The effect of Steve's rule is to make MORE cheaper, which seems to be playing to the munchkin, not away from them.

You really seem to just be ranting cuz the conclusions seem to just not follow from the examples?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip


Being really strong means many thnigs.

Apparently, by your thinking, to prevent munchkinism, it means being cheaper too?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Uhmmm, Yeah, riiiight try looking at maps of every major city in the world most have some sort of water way inthem. I can get from Denver to Dallas dangably fast w/ 124" NCM. Crossing the Rockies/most mountain ranges would be tough admittedly, but then it is not the perfect form of movement either (nothing is ).
Swimming gives you access to over 75% of the earth's Surface plus a ton beneath it.

Read the comment... it only becomes important if the GM scripts it to be. Thats my point. its worth 60 points if and only if the GM makes it so.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

If the Gm can't/won't let your character shine by having some fun things happen around that you can deal with better than others then that is more the Gm's fault than "the points"? isn't it?

You are close oh so close. Absolutely it comes down to does the GM "let you shine"... does he let you see value for your investment by scripting the scenarios the allow you to see benefit from that power.

That should tell you something... if swimming cost 30 instead of 60 for that same movement, it too would boil down to did the GM "let you shine." Which should tell you the cost is not some objective figurer arrived at by precise calculation... but rather a purely subjective measure, a judgement, a fiat, a CHOICE made by the Gm as to how much he will allow that power to be a significant element.

So why have all the math?

It all comes down to the relative values of A vs B represented by the cost the GM told the players and the factual value in play he shows them. Whatever those values are, if they coincide, then its running fairly good. if not, it isn't. All the math in the world between those two stages matters not a whit.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

However the point system ties in all of the HERO mechanics into a simple format. How cumbersom would it be to have 10 different mechanics for building a character and how would you exchange values for them?

Not sure what you mean by exchange values.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

the Problem with ANY D&D system is that _all_ of the mechanics are separate, and are _all_ point systems. A spell cannot be bought with hitpoints, a feat does not equate a stat increase many of the levels are "Blanks" to build up to better levels and the thing is you have to follow the same road to get anywhere.

Why should you be able to buy a spell with hitpoints? Reading a book doesn't make you weaker. Would you allow a mage to sell back body to buy a magic missile in hero as a routine choice or would you just allow it for a mage whose concept allowed him to spend his life essense in that way?


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Too much multiclassing is a bad thing.

I think in general we can say that once you have reached "too much" of whatever the subject is we can assume its no longer a good thing. The definition of "too much" seems to cover that without saying much at all about the subject.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Actually If you really want me to slam AD&D3Rd I will, here goes:

Apparently there is no stopping you, regardless of my wants.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Not enough Social systems to handle a real society.

But perhaps enough to run an action-adventure story in a genre of myth legend and fantasy.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

the challenge factor (ever heard of Tuckers Kobolds? Direct problem with cf 's).

See above. Els are supposed to handle situational and scenario modifiers.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Wealth being tied directly to Class levels but not influencing Monsters

NPCs have gear, monsters have treasure and both can use it. Both are related to their CR/level. Wealth per level is a benchmark, not a mandate.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

NPC only Classes. Don't _EVEN_ BRING THIS ONE UP IT HAS BEEN A SORE POINT SINCE 1ST ED AD&D WITH ME. IF A GM CAN'T CHALLENGE/BEAT A PARTY WITH THE STUFF THE PLAYERS CAN BE/DO THEN HE SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING A CAMPAIGN!

Ok, realizing you have control issues here, i will tread lightly. I think you missed what NPC classes are all about. They are not about providing some sort of uber challenge. They are classes to reflect various useful NPCS who do not really fit the adventurer mold and as such are not often going to make great PCs. They are not there because the Gm cannot challenge the PCs at all. They are there to help flesh out thwe world with more of those people who are just not heroes, but more normal folk, yet who for various periods play roles in the adventure or quest. If you thought NPC classes in 3e were about new challenges, you just missed the boat.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Combat intensive system, especially the rewards system.

The nature of the rewards is determined by the challenges presented by the GM. They can be combat or not, as he scripts.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Points or no points 3RD has problems.

No argument there. My point has never been that DND is a perfect system... although if i adopt HERO critical technique 101 and chose to not count any of those when i analyze it, i could be deluding myself into thinking so... but i dont so i am not.

My point is that HERO is not overall a better system. HERo overall doesn't balance better. HERO overall isn't more easily customizable. In short, i am just refuting the "HERO is better" claims.

Personally, for my uses, i find HERO to be a worse system, because its problems are more trouble for me to handle than the DND ones are. But thats just me. Like i said, some GMs will believe they need the math... and while i think they are wrong, i do try not to overestimate hero players that often.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

They have slowly solved some problems but since what 2-3 years ago they released 3 now they are releasing 3.5 and they now want more money out of me for being stupid and buying their krap in the first place? Uh no.

The 3.5 rules will be available online and according to wotc on the release date for the books. They are hoping you will choose to buy the books, seeing enough balue in them, but they are not requiring it.

I figurte once HERO places its core rules for free download, HERO fans might actually have a reasonable position to start seriously talking about pricing issues for rules between HERO and DND.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

And HERO is more open than the D&D system, heckaroonie it wasn't until much later (just pre 3.5 press release ) that I found out that Magic Missle is supposed to be the "best first level spell in the game" period end of sentence. HERO at least suggests you think about what the hell you are doing when you play with the system.

It was discussed as such for years. It was one of the cases where they intentionally and openly violated the design rules for sake of "history." If you did not catch on until recently thats just speaking to how current your information is.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

What curtains do i have to look behind to find out that fact in 3RD?

They talk about alterations and such in the system in both the DMG and PHB.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

At least with some math rather than a fiat based system I can relativistically change things and have some concept of making them make sense.

you need to do the same thing in DND, you just don't need points to tell you.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

If I take MB and make it cost 5 points per level I dang well need to make MD _at least_ as common as ED or PD, adding it into Armor and Force Field would also not be a bad idea. even going so far as to add range mods and other quirkyness. Uhm where in 3RD is there a real discussion of adding new stats and creating new powers and what you need to do to concern yourself with game balance?

In the DMG, in the PHB, and so forth.

matter of fact, in the DMG for a spec of specifics, there is a section on adding new spells and it even iirc includes damage benchmarks divided by magic source. Also in the DMg there is a discussion of addinf new magic items. Also in the DMG there ...

Did you miss all of these? I think they are even online in the SRD for you to peruse for free.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

a MB will affect many things and has many more advantages that an EB does/will not.

and an eb will affect many things a mb will not. a Mb wont break down that door or blow off your shackles or help you escape spideys webbing. Whats the ratio of entangles vs robots with no egos to villains who are more vulnerable to MB than to EB? An AVERAGE supervillain, using hero 5 standards will have 20 defense vs the eb meaning a 12d6 guy will see 22 stun thru. The 6d6 MB guy will see 21 stun thru assuming NO mental defense. Against an entable... the ratio is useful to useless. Against a robot with no ego, the ratio is again useful to useless even if i assume immune to stun and a 7 PD/ED. Against a wall... the ratio is again useful to useless.

Now, i am not saying that the ratio is 1-1 or 1-3 or 1-2. i am saying that ratio varies with the challenges presented and is not a static figure. Now, IMO, many of the values are off from what i would run as a typical campaign or what i see in the comics... i do not normally see the area attacks in comics being grossly less effective than their single target counterparts, the way hero often works them out.



Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Is it worth twice the price? quite possibly. In fact arguably so since _at the least_ MB is an AVLD attack.
Straw man knocked down.

Actually not at all. unfortunately i don't think you are seeing that.

But it is at least gratifying enough to know that some 5 point dsifferences you do find worth quibbling about. Amazxingly, it seems the COMBAT ones are wirth quibbling about while the ones such as water breathing and clinging aren't. Some might have suspected that with all your going on about non-combat and DNDs combat orientation being so bad you might have went the other way, considering non-combat as much worth quibbling about as the damage ones.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Aha! Im seeing part of your problem, you are talking about two different things
You are really talking about a Movement based power vs. a Life support. You are simpy taking a comparing of things that in some ways don't really compare.

Yet the system does compare them and make me compare them because they assign both a cost and taking one is taking points away that could go to the other. Also, weren't you just a moment ago talking about the DND problem being having different things not linked together in a common framework so that for instance hit points were not put in spending opposition with spells?

besides, you did not have a problem with comparison when it was just clinging and water breathing.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

The more movement based powers you have the better clinging gets. Clinging gets enhanced _by_ other things.
WB typically does not get enhanced by other things.

seems to me that Wb would be better if you had swimming in more than the base or bision that helped or free movement stuff to allow you to avoid the other penalties. or did i miss something?

But either way, are you suggesting clinging should be cheaper is you dont have movement or that clinging's value is dependent on movements? isn't clinging a flat cost, only adjusted uward by added strength?

Doesn't clinging with 10 strength and 6" of wall crawling cost 10 points for a character with those traits, while clinging with 60 strength and 30" wall crawling cost the same 10 points for a character with those traits.

if indeed clinging is more effective based on these other traits, shouldn't its cost reflect that and adjust accordingly?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Now then in the grand scope of things WB is worth less than SCB? I would think so since there are many things that SCB protects against that WB would not. is SCB =to Clinging in most cases, yes.

OK which one of use said just a moment ago that life support and movement could not be compared?

oh wait, it was you when you said "You are simpy taking a comparing of things that in some ways don't really compare. "

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

The ability to survive most environments vs the ability to execute certain difficult movement manuvers is probably approximately the same.

Isn;t that actually really related to the situations you face, and only true if the Gm scripts the encounters to make this a reality in play?

That seems such an obvious point.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Now you are going to try to prove me wrong by pointing out exceptions, well there are exceptions to 3RD being right too. Clinging and WB abilities don't compare in 3RD either. There is a reason why there has never been a mass Spider Climb Spell without the Spider Climb spell disadvantages. It is too powerful for the limits of the D&D system, any version. Heck even the name is a misnomer it should be Sticky Climb, not Spider Climb(read the spell). There is a reason why there has not been a mass WB spell or SCB.

Here again we come to the part where your assumtions and lack of knowledge gets you into trouble. See the basic Wb spell in DND 3e allows multiple people to be affected. At the basic level a 5th level wizard could affect himself and four other for two hours each with a single casting of the spell. he actually can affect more but for less time... like say a total of 10 people for an hour each.

So it seems perhaps that its not quite as fragile a system in danger of simple mass spells as you suspect.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Wow I can build an argument that you are wrong. :)
Straw man Knocked down.

You sure can if you just want to base it on supposition and incorrect knowledge of the system.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Hmm lessee, lets negate the cost differential by upgrading WB to SCB.

Why? Didn't you just say the difference wasn't worth quibbling about? Why can you not deal with the example built on your claim without deciding to change it to some other point?

Oh well, it seems like you are unable or unwilling to back up your claim. OK. i will now take it that you do feel the 5 points difference between Wb and clinging IS worth quibbling about.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Now I have a choice between giving the ability to my friends the abilty to through superior tactics use terrain and avoid traps and thereby negate the advantages of or create a disadvantage for others, vs the ability to ignore poison gas attacks, being strangled/suffocated etc. WB would do half that,

How do you arribe at half? It seems to me that is directly related to the relative frequency of drowning in water threats vs gas, choked, suffocated etc.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

and would allow a retreat into water, Hmmm seems pretty fair to me. Yep your argument is sure solid. Clinging _IS_ twice as effective as WB, why thank you for proving our system with all of your hard work.

Well i must say it does not surprise me in the least that that little bit of showmanship passes for proof in this neck of the woods.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

BTW Waterdeep is a major City in Forgotten Realms Setting, you might have heard of it. One of the big three settings being pushed upon hapless players and Gm's by D&D?

I am aware of it i just have never used it and as such dont want to pretend to know a lot about it. If i had, it would have led to me making uninformed claims in all likelihood and i will try and leave that to your hero guys when ever possible.

As for pushed, sold maybe, but i have yet to see DND pushers.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Last shots: D&D is an absolute system.
Hero is a non-abasolute system.

HERO starts with an H.
DND starts with a D.

The HERO rulebook is mostly black, and black is the color of evil.
The DND rulebooks are multicoloered and multicolors are used creatively to make fun things.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Learn the difference, Hero aint for everyone, neither is D&D. Stop trying to push your Crack at me and ill try to do the same.

But, in case you missed it, I am not trying to push anything on you. i am for the most part trying to refute and explain the fallacies of the HERO is better nonsense started here by someone else. In spite of misunderstandings, i did not come here and start a thread pushing DND. I came here and responded to a thread someone else began about the differences and their views and so forth.

perhaps you should ask steve to create a forum where the rules are nothing good can be said about other game systems and nothing bad can be said about hero but bad things can be said about other games systems?

[AnotherSkip]

Shoo!
im tired of your straw men

go way.
id post a more intelligent answer except Oh gee willikers I tried allready to point out that _some_ of the rules are not totally useful to characters being built for points rather than a concept.

built to concept not munchkining powergaming ruleslawyering and you wont need D&D.

[tesuji]

you seem to use the term straw man a lot. I think perhaps it does not mean what you think it means.

but if you are saying, in a rather odd way, that sometimes when following the hero rules the math and procedures give you illogical or inconsistent results and that for all its math and process it needs a reasoned judgement made as to whether the values produced are correct or not, then we are of course in agreement.

Obviously, no one examinging cases like weak tail/strong tail or a tale of two bases, except it seem Mr Long, would judge those to be correct if looing at the final product as a case of juedgement and reason, the so called fiat you were so hot on. Only when one is led to believe the process verifies the result would one come to those being treated as correct.

Thanks for the conversation, or at least, for parts of it. When you get a handle on your control issues perhaps we can continue this more constructively?






Originally posted by AnotherSkip
Shoo!
im tired of your straw men

go way.
id post a more intelligent answer except Oh gee willikers I tried allready to point out that _some_ of the rules are not totally useful to characters being built for points rather than a concept.

built to concept not munchkining powergaming ruleslawyering and you wont need D&D.

[AnotherSkip]

Bubba Tetsujii Here is the simple of it.

Build two characters just like you did then throw out HERO5.92.
Here ill do it for you.

STR 60
Dex 30
CON 30
BOD 30
Int 10
EGO 10
PRE 10
COM 10
PD 12
ED 6
Stun 75
REC 18
speed 5
end 60

Extra limb tail (60 strength)

This character costs 205 for these traits.

Now if i buy the character with a strength 30 tail without he costs less

STR 60 (-1/4 on 30 strength)
Dex 30
CON 30
BOD 30
Int 10
EGO 10
PRE 10
COM 10
PD 12
ED 6
Stun 75
REC 18
speed 5
end 60

Extra limb tail (30 strength only)

This guy costs 199.

Rules to know...
HERO5.112 Limited manipulation which specifically spells out the way to point out extra limbs that use less than the full strength as a -1/4 limit on the STR or DEX.
HERO5.92 under characteristics which specifically states the if the limitation on the primary does not effect the figureds, then you dont get the figureds. However to show what would actually happen if you dropped this rule it was (of course) dropped

Now then what happened?
Ill 'splain it to you Lucy.*

you built a character that in the end is just as powerful as the guy without the 30 strength tail for six points cheaper, or to look at it differently got the extra tail for free and got a one point reduction for buying his strength just as high as the other character by taking a non-limiting limit.
If you built your character without the "limited" tail would you feel good about this? That is the reason why some limits are set to where there _is_ no benefit to them _unless_ it is for character concept.

i suspect that when you found the problem you were really looking for mathmatical problems with the system you have found what, two? everthing else is subjective. Just like your much vaunted D&D system.

It would be possibly be more accurate to do a chart and show how the actual diasadvantage should be scaled to the level of STR it is just easier to set it at the minimum level and be done with it.
HERO has better things to do than subbalance a fairly minor rule, I f you _really_ think it is a problem then subbalance the thing yourself show _all_ the math and then post it. Steve reads many of these posts himself and if he can see your logic and your math is sound you will be making a good game better.

Steve has done this before with lowering the Sun multiplier cost.

However it would be better if you kept the attitude right out of there and presented it as straightforward as possible.


/humor on
*End result we like to call powergaming munchkinism. We try to cut down on that alot. Happens when we get these darn D&D players though.
/humor off

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Now then what happened?
Ill 'splain it to you Lucy.*

No need, we have already covered this ground. it seems both you and i agree that for this case the results produced by the rules make less sense than if you just waive the rules, by fiat, until you get a more reasonable result.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

That is the reason why some limits are set to where there _is_ no benefit to them _unless_ it is for character concept.

In this case the weaker tail concept, which you described as a nightcrawler thing and appeared ok with as a concept has nothing to do with whether the rules point it as more expensive as a strong tail or not.

The key is the strong tail should not be cheaper. Yet, by the rules it is, which just goes to show that a subjective judgement and assessment after applying the formula is a good thing, a needed thing, to handle these cases. (some heretics, like me, even go so far as to not see the reason for having a formula, and can skip straight to the judgement.)

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

i suspect that when you found the problem you were really looking for mathmatical problems with the system you have found what, two?

Thats one heck of an assumption.

These are two exmples of ONE core principle error... the principle of buying a lim. The two most obvious examples are here in the extra limb and in bases.

That is just one organic flaw. There are others. i invite you to go examine the archives and you will find the threads and qna on others.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

everthing else is subjective. Just like your much vaunted D&D system.

Then we are at last getting somewhere. Its good we have gotten past the tired "hero is better" and are finally on more equitable ground.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

It would be possibly be more accurate to do a chart and show how the actual diasadvantage should be scaled to the level of STR it is just easier to set it at the minimum level and be done with it.

Easier? Sure. But if now in a rulebook of over 400 pages or so we are assigning some values based on convenience and others on merit, it seems we have delved even further away from objective and towards subjective... why we are even close to the neighborhood of fiat.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

HERO has better things to do than subbalance a fairly minor rule, I f you _really_ think it is a problem then subbalance the thing yourself show _all_ the math and then post it. Steve reads many of these posts himself and if he can see your logic and your math is sound you will be making a good game better.

Uh the fix is to throw out the buying a lim principle. Do not let a purchase of trait A allow you to place a limit on trait B. Thats the flaw, not the value of the lim or its scaling but the principle in the model of allowing two disparate purchases to affect each other. it will fix bases at the same time.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

However it would be better if you kept the attitude right out of there and presented it as straightforward as possible.

After your recent posts, you cannot believe how seriously i take this bit of advice from you regarding controlling the attitude while posting.

Thanks a lot.

[Nightshade]

Fine!

You don't like HERO. It is heavy handed and includes too much math. I think that D&D is EXTREMELY heavy handed and includes so many rules of the "because that's how it works" variety and forces players into situations that they and GM's may not like. The math involved in HERO I learned in 3rd grade. It is obviously truly difficult, since 8 year olds are expected to master it, but whatever.

You prefer D&D. As I have stated many, many times, GREAT! I am so glad that you like the system that you prefer.

Now, do us all a favor, and go play it. Go to the D&D forums and have a blast. As annoying to you as my posts that didn't give the EXACT rules (which you, of course, ignored the points to), it is much more annoying to everyone to go to a forum and extoll how annoying HERO is and D&D is so much better when the forum is for Fantasy HERO. If you don't like the system, and you prefer something else, by all means play it.

But please don't sit there and write post after post extolling the wonders of a system that the majority of the members of this forum finds inferior, for WHATEVER REASON. Who cares what the reason is? What difference does it make. You obviously like a linear skill resolution system and it makes more sense to you. Great. I personally like a system where skill matters more over the magic modifiers.

In the end, there is only one question: Does the system do for you what you want?

But, just so we can continue the endless silliness of people attempting to prove the unprovable, I will give you what I had to do in HERO and in D&D to make it work for my game:

In D&D, I have to do the following:

Delete and create 5 basic character classes, modify the remaining.
Create a new magic system.
Create about 40 or 50 prestige classes (I have a pretty large world).
Create all of the races, including modifiers.
Create religion(s) for the world, including all of the gods, politics, important churches, etc.).

Now, these steps are individually pretty hefty.

Here is what I had to do in HERO:

Create a new magic system.
Create all of the races including modifiers.
Create religion(s) for the world, including all of the gods, politics, important churches, etc.).

That's it. The only difference, and the thing that will take pretty much all of the extra time, is the classes. And, just to head the obvious next statement off at the pass, I don't use package deals for professions, only for races. This leads to much less time for HERO for me than in D&D.

If you can use a lot of the published material for D&D and it fits your world, I'm happy for you. I really am. Most of it is not useful for me or my world. If I had a different world concept, then the answer might be different.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

and includes too much math... The math involved in HERO I learned in 3rd grade. It is obviously truly difficult, since 8 year olds are expected to master it, but whatever.

Yet another HEROism... the apparent inability of HERO players to rationally see, even when they type it, the difference between the quantity of the math and the complexity of the math. One day, perhaps, its advocates can buy off that psych lim? Maybe replacing it with a psych lim PHOBIC reaction to criticism of HERO by DND players or maybe an enraged?

Of course, if they were advocates of a system that did not make personality accounting an element of how strong their energy blast is, they could just get over the psych lim through roleplaying and not need to buy into a new phobia or enraged at all, not have to weaken their energy blast, not have to stifle their character growth until it was bought off.


Originally posted by Nightshade

Now, do us all a favor,

Why in the world should i do you a favor? I mean, i like to be helpful and all, but if you really seek a favor you might want to have a look see at your tone. That whole honey vs vinegar flies thing is true.


Originally posted by Nightshade

and go play it. Go to the D&D forums and have a blast. As annoying to you as my posts that didn't give the EXACT rules (which you, of course, ignored the points to),

I do post on the DND boards. Fortunately i can sometimes find time for both. I expect i will be posting there less in the future as i wont be getting 3.5, except online, and wont be using it. it will really depend on how much the boards transitions to only 3.5 discussion. So, who knows, i might find more time to post here.

I adressed your rules errors when necessary. i mean when your complaint is about the probability of success a given skill gives yet you fail to understand or get that MULTIPLE successes are required and to see how that affects the probabilities, that deserves mention, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Nightshade

it is much more annoying to everyone to go to a forum and extoll how annoying HERO is and D&D is so much better when the forum is for Fantasy HERO. If you don't like the system, and you prefer something else, by all means play it.

Again, in case you missed it, someone using these forusm started this thread to discuss DND and HERo. I did not start this thread, i just responded to it IN TOPIC. If you want to complain about having a thread on the Fh board that is about HERo and DND, then you should be taking it up with that poster, not me.

On the other hand, if you and others want to get the forum policy changed so that posts which have criticisms of HERO are against the rules so that you get a "only nice things said about hero" fan site, then that is again something to be taken up with the board people, not me.

Originally posted by Nightshade

But please don't sit there and write post after post extolling the wonders of a system that the majority of the members of this forum finds inferior, for WHATEVER REASON. Who cares what the reason is? What difference does it make. You obviously like a linear skill resolution system and it makes more sense to you. Great. I personally like a system where skill matters more over the magic modifiers.

The relative value of skill vs magic is a setting issue, not a system issue. HERo is surely flexible enough to allow for a story where magic items which go beyond the scope of skills and are more important to the resolution, if the Gm wants to set his campaign up that way. Similarly, the d20 engine can support magic poor worlds, just look at D20M and the multitude of other genres covered. For instance, i really doubt StarGate SG-1 will have a lot of magic.

Originally posted by Nightshade

In the end, there is only one question: Does the system do for you what you want?

Right and i think that was in part a subject in this thread, covered in greater detail than you like perhaps.

BTW, i don't recall seeing you jumping those "why hero is better" guys for posting their stuff? So is this egalitarian "whatever works for you is cool dont post specifics" only reserved for anti-hero-is-great posters?

Originally posted by Nightshade

But, just so we can continue the endless silliness of people attempting to prove the unprovable, I will give you what I had to do in HERO and in D&D to make it work for my game:

Haven't we already established that your game was very much different from dnd and very close to hero, so the point has already been covered?

Originally posted by Nightshade


Create a new magic system.
Create all of the races including modifiers.
Create religion(s) for the world, including all of the gods, politics, important churches, etc.).

That's it. The only difference, and the thing that will take pretty much all of the extra time, is the classes. And, just to head the obvious next statement off at the pass, I don't use package deals for professions, only for races. This leads to much less time for HERO for me than in D&D.

I would describe that world as woefully incomplete at the point that you stopped. I mean as a player i would want to know if i can buy a laser rifle, if i could have a PC who is a scientist, if i can buy magical powers with no magic skill, if i can use the delayed advantage to get spells really cheap, and so on and so on and so on... is +22 OCV with my main attack reasonable for a untrained warrior? is it low?

etc etc etc.

Now you seem to be ASSUMING that the answers to these are all known by your players or that as you go thru it you will tell them ad hoc. I prefer to give them this information ahead of time, so they have a basis for comparison so that when they conceive of a "this guy served as a city guardsman for three years" character they have some sort of an idea how to represent that in game terms. (BTW, thats why package deals for professions are a good thing... like classes they give your players invaluable info on what to expect.)

YMMV, I just like to do more work upfront so the players have a better understanding of their world going in.

Originally posted by Nightshade

If you can use a lot of the published material for D&D and it fits your world, I'm happy for you. I really am. Most of it is not useful for me or my world. If I had a different world concept, then the answer might be different.

I actually use almost nil, other than maps of course, which i swipe from anywhere i can get them. I often swipe an idea from a product, whether its 3e or some other product is irrelevent, the idea is the thing.

Thanks for chiming in, but, i will recommend you probably should not chime in too much on threads about DND and HERO is seeing posts about DND and HERO are so offensive to you. Maybe a little self-control on your part would not end up with you ranting in a froth about how other people should not be posting, when they are well within the board's scope and when, in this case, they are actually just replying to a thread others began.

Just a suggestion.

[AnotherSkip]

Wow Tesujii. Naww ill rename you Tetsubo.

Congratulations i now never want to look at another 3RD book so long as i live.

You are Soooo wrong and here is why.
Math.

You just reminded me there is _more math_ in a 3RD character than a
FH character!!!!!!!!!!

OKies first off the odds of my FH character (which is what we are _really talking about_ 3RD has nothing else for it) will have a lim or an advantage on a stat is really very small. you have to add them up and cross index , Just like in 3RD.

Skills have points Just like in 3RD.

BAB=CSL's

and imdone.

in addtion I can build powerful characters that_never_
have an adjustment that requires fractional equations.

However in D&D if my Primary stat(s) exceed certain limits I have to multiply my xp by 10%. and If my gm gives them out weekly i have to do the same bsic calculation weekly. most Xp totals come out to things like 1537 or 2462. in a low campaingn that xp calculatin can mean the difference between one week and the next of leveling.

I can build a character that does not ever need to do that adjustment either, but he would be lacking in several primary areas.

hmmm Tetsubo,
Probably be better for you if just quit on the math subject. I would suggest you try the Amber diceless roleplaying system. Little math to hide the subjectivity behind, which makes it verry different from AD&D.
:)

YAWN.
try again.

[AnotherSkip]

Originally posted by tesuji


BTW, i don't recall seeing you jumping those "why hero is better" guys for posting their stuff? So is this egalitarian "whatever works for you is cool dont post specifics" only reserved for anti-hero-is-great posters?[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh wait, I have an answer!!!! They aren't arses, so they don't get jumped.


Originally posted by tesuji


YMMV, I just like to do more work upfront so the players have a better understanding of their world going in. [/B][/QUOTE]

So now then you prefer to do more work upfront? I thought you did not like to do alot of work upfront? Isn't this a contradiction fo your previous posts? Yep it sure is.


What is Tetsubo's problem?
Perhaps it is a lack of concentration.


Originally posted by tesuji

I would describe that world as woefully incomplete at the point that you stopped. I mean as a player i would want to know if i can buy a laser rifle, if i could have a PC who is a scientist, if i can buy magical powers with no magic skill, if i can use the delayed advantage to get spells really cheap, and so on and so on and so on... is +22 OCV with my main attack reasonable for a untrained warrior? is it low?

etc etc etc.[/B][/QUOTE]

Uhhh I _SERIOUSLY_ doubt that you have covered those in your campaign notes. If not and you feel uncomfortable with just answering a few questions in front of your players off the cuff then you need the 3RD thought crutch of playing out of the book. If so then it describes the average intelligence of your players as being worrisome. Get new players.

Besides can I have a 22 BAB in a 1st level fighter? Oooh can I have a Magic Missile spell that ignores the armor casting restrictions because im a Scientist? can my Rogue have an X-ray laser rifle?

That is the level of intelligence you are showing for your players and yourself.

*pats Tetsubo on the head and leaves*

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Wow Tesujii. Naww ill rename you Tetsubo.

OK, if you have such a problem with my handle, sure, whatever makes it easier for you is fine.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Congratulations i now never want to look at another 3RD book so long as i live.

OK.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

You are Soooo wrong and here is why.
Math.
You just reminded me there is _more math_ in a 3RD character than a
FH character!!!!!!!!!!

Not in my experience. In my experience having everything weighed against each other turns character creation into a much more mathematically in depth process. DND and D20 usually produce less math in order to get the character down. IF nothing else, not having personality and person being a part of the accoutning system by using disadvantages makes for less math, as these elements can be freely defined and described without having to assess their impact on one's punch or sword swinging.

if you find it to actually be the case that less math is done in FH, thats cool.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

in addtion I can build powerful characters that_never_
have an adjustment that requires fractional equations.

How did you figure out his stun? Isn't stun still STR/2+CON/2+Body in yourbFH game? Isn't recovery still STR/5+CON/5 in your FH game? Isn't PD still STR/5 in your FH game?

You seem to be using some house rules designed to streamline the Fh core system to eliminate some of the more tedious math. Thats cool! i found that served me well as well when streamlining FH to new player friendly mode as well some years ago.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

However in D&D if my Primary stat(s) exceed certain limits I have to multiply my xp by 10%.

I have no earthly idea to what you are referring here. Some class/levek combos (in settings where this is the case) will cause 205 xp penalties. Some races have level equivalents which cause you to be trested for leveling up as a higher level character, effectively making race levels.

But i may be missing something but i do not know of any primary stat vs XP awards 10% rule.

Oh well, this could be just another misunderstanding you have of how DND works, or it may be something I am unaware of.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

hmmm Tetsubo,
Probably be better for you if just quit on the math subject.

Not really, in spite of your confusion about DND and how it works, I am quite confident in my position and my points. Once we figure out what you are actually talking about, we can address your issue easily enough.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

I would suggest you try the Amber diceless roleplaying system. Little math to hide the subjectivity behind, which makes it verry different from AD&D.
:)

BTW are you back to previous versions of DND?

FWIW, I loved the Amber system. I consider it to be a great system and recommend it for those with the right types of players and good GMs.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Oh wait, I have an answer!!!! They aren't arses, so they don't get jumped.

Well, now that is an interesting reply. IS this the level of name calling we can expect?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

So now then you prefer to do more work upfront?

I prefer to give my players the information they need to get into the world and have a frame of reference to use.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

I thought you did not like to do alot of work upfront?

Then you were mistaken. i never said that. Given that i have repeatedly referenced cretaing classes for the setting and altering classes for the setting, i cannot imagine where you got the idea i was against doing the work that is needed.

i am against doing needless work at anytime, up front or otherwise.


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Isn't this a contradiction fo your previous posts? Yep it sure is.

I would be thrilled to see you show that contradiction.

I have never been against work upfront.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

What is Tetsubo's problem?
Perhaps it is a lack of concentration.

nahh... perhaps an excess of people who think clever = making stuff up and claiming its what others believe.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Uhhh I _SERIOUSLY_ doubt that you have covered those in your campaign notes. If not and you feel uncomfortable with just answering a few questions in front of your players off the cuff then you need the 3RD thought crutch of playing out of the book. If so then it describes the average intelligence of your players as being worrisome. Get new players.

By giving them classes and equipment lists and such and not just handing them a character construction toolkit, i do cover these things. Remember, i am not the one who keeps listing a couple of things and then saying thats enough in order to make it look like its not that much work.

Try and keep up.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Besides can I have a 22 BAB in a 1st level fighter? Oooh can I have a Magic Missile spell that ignores the armor casting restrictions because im a Scientist? can my Rogue have an X-ray laser rifle?

Since there are classes which detail what is appropriate for that level, and equipment lists which detail items availabvle and costs... those questions would be rather contrary to the information given.

Its not like i gave you points, races, a magic system and then said go for it, after all.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

That is the level of intelligence you are showing for your players and yourself.

The ability to take information given on a setting and use it, yes.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

*pats Tetsubo on the head and leaves*
Why you feel the need to have changed from discussion to basic ranting and insulting escapes me. Did you really feel this type of post was one you wanted your handle on?

I guess so.

or perhaps thi is a new take... being insulting or belligerant in hopes it will scare me off, or hurt my feelings so i wont come back or maybe just get me to reply all huffy and blathering and maybe you could get the thread closed?

hard to say.

But if this is an example of good and proper HERO BOARD posting, the hey, i am not in any concern whatsoever about the tone and tenor of my posts. So, thanks for showing me a banechmark i can use.

You have indeed been most helpful!

[Vondy]

/RANT WARNING ON!!!

Dear God help me!

What is the point of debating wholly subjective preferences in relations to a somewhat geeky and perfectly enjoyable hobby?

Someone likes 3E better than Hero? Bully for them.

Someone likes Hero better than 3E? Bully for them.

This is almost as ridiculous as debating the which version of Star Trek is better.

Its COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. What is the point of wasting all of this testosterone on a stupid freaking game system?!!!

If you used all of this testosterone in your professional and personal lives you'd have completed your PHd and acquired a HAREM of adoring women.

I personally loathe 3E, but if someone what to play it or likes it better that's their personal taste. The same goes for Hero enthusiasts. We love it, but that's our personal taste.

Its apples and oranges as far as the mechanics are concerned. I could understand GURPS V. HERO, but 3E?

The point is utterly unfathomable. The spider man is a brick debate, the batman has normal characteristic maxima debate, and the how to build caps shield debate are all understandable within the contect of uber-geek gamerdom, but this I honestly don't get.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!

Plonk!
Plonk!
Plonk!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!

/RANT WARNING OFF!!!

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by D-Man
/RANT WARNING ON!!!

Wow. here we go.

Originally posted by D-Man

What is the point of debating wholly subjective preferences in relations to a somewhat geeky and perfectly enjoyable hobby?

I assume that, based on my experience, people post here for one of two reasons... personal enjoyment or problem solving... and often those two are not exclusory.

Originally posted by D-Man

This is almost as ridiculous as debating the which version of Star Trek is better.

Well, now that you mention it...DS-9 of course.

But indeed, it is like that. If you go to star trek web pages you will probably find plenty of those, running over how well the lighting was here vs the sound was better there and so on and so on. Heck i once had a roommate who could go for 90 minutes non-stop about why TOS was so superior to Next Gen.

This is not much different.

Originally posted by D-Man

Its COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

In terms of preferences yes, but not necessarily in terms of analysis. For instance, if someone is looking for a start trek with great FX, you would not recommend them to TOS... thats not really that subjective... what is subjective is the relative value between good sfx vs good story.

Originally posted by D-Man

What is the point of wasting all of this testosterone on a stupid freaking game system?!!!

I guarantee you i have wasted no testerone on this forum. I have not even needed to clean froth from my keyboard.

Originally posted by D-Man

If you used all of this testosterone in your professional and personal lives you'd have completed your PHd and acquired a HAREM of adoring women.

Really?

Originally posted by D-Man

I personally loathe 3E, but if someone what to play it or likes it better that's their personal taste. The same goes for Hero enthusiasts. We love it, but that's our personal taste.

Thats cool.

So the only thing you apparently have a bad on for is letting other people debate what they want especially if it seems pointless to you? Thats the big bad that will get you going?

Here is a question for you...why is preferred gaming system merits something you feel is subjective enough but that preferred topics of debate is not, so that the former you dont feel is worth anyone doing but the latter is important enough to make you waste your valuable testerone on a rant whenever you see people doing it?

Originally posted by D-Man

Its apples and oranges as far as the mechanics are concerned. I could understand GURPS V. HERO, but 3E?

Contrast is as valid for comparison as similarity. I mean, if you limit your analysis to "just point buy systems similar to hero" that remains a rather closed comparison. You wouldn't look at "classed vs non-classed" or even diced vs diceless with that limited a scope.

Its kinda like the difference between discussing the choice of two pasta dishes vs the discussion of mexican or chinese.

Originally posted by D-Man

The point is utterly unfathomable. The spider man is a brick debate, the batman has normal characteristic maxima debate, and the how to build caps shield debate are all understandable within the contect of uber-geek gamerdom, but this I honestly don't get.

So it appears. I dont get the whole "what you ought not to be debating" thing is about myself. That seems even more subjective?

Originally posted by D-Man

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!

Plonk!
Plonk!
Plonk!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!

/RANT WARNING OFF!!!


Ahh... more control issues.

Hmmm...

fortunately it does not seem to be contagious.

enjoy your games.

[white peregrine]

3e vs Hero
rough call. each have their strengths and weaknesses. given the idea that we are creating a "new world" the decision on which system to use would best be served by looking at, not only the creator of the world, but the players of this world as well. I believe that given time either system would work...depends on how much work one is willing to put in in creating this new world and this applies to both hero and 3e.

the amount of material to be converted/generated is about the same all told in regards to the amount of work that is needed. then, this could also be due to my comfort level at taking on such a task.

3e is a simpler system, imo. it has predefined value that allow a person to pick it up and start playing immediately. it has the strength of a predefined world/worlds/specific genre that anyone can get into quickly. sure there are parts that need to be worked on but on the whole it works and the same could be said about any system out there, Hero included.

3e, in its defence, has made some great strides in incorporating the roleplaying aspect. the thing is though, it is built for combat...I'll admit that. they are trying to change it though. the inclusion of Feats and more Skills has done wonders for the system and makes it worlds better than 2E which had a few non-weapon prof and the rest was open. is it on the level of hero in complexity? nope, but like I said...it's a simpler system...it is easier for a new player to pick up and play or run 3e than hero...

changing things in 3e can happen, its just a matter of how much you want to do...but remember the system and the specific genre it is meant for and this will go a long ways. if you are looking to have a "levelless" "non-combat" orientated campaign it can be done but it may be done better by leaving the d20 system....although there are some other worlds in the d20 realms that could work...d20 modern was mentioned and the star wars system is not all that bad either...
...
I could ramble on some more but I am sure that I will get zapped for what I have said even so...

[AnotherSkip]

Ehhh dont worry abut me zapping you.

tetsubo seems to have a penchant for trying to beat people over the head like the club I named him after.


Since he cannot read his own posts however. as well as those of others especially when the Gm says "I have to create my own magic system" and then Tetsubo rants about
" if i can buy magical powers with no magic skill, if i can use the delayed advantage to get spells really cheap, and so on and so on and so on... "-tetsubo
When most of these questions would be answered By The Creation Of A Magic System.
Verry intelligent there Tetsubo. Im sooo proud of you.

Heck Tetsubo lessee here you build a "balanced" Scientist that is well balanced with the other characters in 3RD. Using only the stuff in the main book.

Good Luck.

I can in HERO.

As for your confusion about Xp you _must_ be having problems if you don't know 3RD edition SRD well enough to find the 10% xp Rule it relates to the Priamry stats of a class. I'd look it up and point it out to you except I dont ever want to pick up another 3RD book again. Very standard. A non optional rule. Been in the books for years and the 3RD ed rules lawyer GM I was under last sure as heck couldn't get rid of it.

Isn't there a multiclassing penalty for having multiclasses outside of your (whatever they called it? the racial preferred class? IIRC) if they are separated by more than 2 levels? IIRC it is 10% per class.
Geee that sounds like' a limitation on multiclassing which would lead to weaker characters.

However there is a problem with Tetsubo that perhaps tetsubo is not aware of.

tetsubo has managed to modify the 3RD system so much he is not playing 3RD anymore. Tetsubo has built the "Tetsubo system" and therefor he is happpy with it (though he has not renamed the system yet) and he is soo happy with it and cannot understand _why_ people are unhappy with 3RD after all it just took 10,000+ decisions to make his happy system. So poor misunderstood Tetsubo goes out and tries to suffer the slings and arrows and encourages the misunderstood masses to play the system he is so haapy with.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by AnotherSkip

tetsubo seems to have a penchant for trying to beat people over the head like the club I named him after.

Ahh so it wasn't a name problem thing but just another try at being insulting? Oh welel, so much for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

When most of these questions would be answered By The Creation Of A Magic System.
Verry intelligent there Tetsubo. Im sooo proud of you.

If you bother to read back further so as to help keep a context instead of skewing one, you will find a while back when that poster did describe his magic system the specific example of the fighter with just a fireball and no other magic skill was covered then not as an example of sillyness but as a viable character and so on. Thats why i chose to post that one again, showing it as an element of choice... not as you seemed to take as an example of stupidity.

However, since it seems clear you are more interested in barbing and insulting, and apparently have for some reason decided to take this to a personal level as opposed to a discussion, then all thats really relatively unimportant.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Heck Tetsubo lessee here you build a "balanced" Scientist that is well balanced with the other characters in 3RD. Using only the stuff in the main book.

From the information in the book, as well as any other setting material i would add, its not appropriate to have a scientist character. As described already many times by me, as you well know, available classes would be a part of the setting info provided for a campaign.

but again, since you just seem to want to focus on barbing and insults, this is really neither here nor there.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

As for your confusion about Xp you _must_ be having problems if you don't know 3RD edition SRD well enough to find the 10% xp Rule it relates to the Priamry stats of a class.

I am unaware of any 10% XP rule relating to primary stats of a class. Perhaps if you could clarify the rules definition it could be cleared up. Obviously, with your focus now being mostly on personal attacks i wont waste any of my time looking for an alleged rule that i have never heard of being used in chargen for PCs, which was the context you broguht it up in.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

I'd look it up and point it out to you except I dont ever want to pick up another 3RD book again. Very standard. A non optional rule. Been in the books for years and the 3RD ed rules lawyer GM I was under last sure as heck couldn't get rid of it.

Again, if you chose to provide relevent info, i will take a look. But until then, I am pretty much Ok with figuring it for just another misunderstanding of yours.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Isn't there a multiclassing penalty for having multiclasses outside of your (whatever they called it? the racial preferred class? IIRC) if they are separated by more than 2 levels? IIRC it is 10% per class.

As i mentioned when you first brought up your 10% primary stat "reference" there is a 20% XP penalty for multiclassing some class level race combos.

is that the rule you are trying to conjure?

you seem to be doing better with just barbs and insults?

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Geee that sounds like' a limitation on multiclassing which would lead to weaker characters.

The permissable multiclass combos and such are a matter of setting. They lift a number of class combo restrictions in FR for instance. I myself adopted a different multiclassing favored class system for my game. So if you don't like the greyhawk setting rules, if they are not appropriate for your campaign, then you provide the players with information on what is respresentative for YOUR SETTING. Its really quite simple.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

However there is a problem with Tetsubo that perhaps tetsubo is not aware of.

Yawn.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

tetsubo has managed to modify the 3RD system so much he is not playing 3RD anymore.

The effort required is a good reason i conclude that it is customizable.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Tetsubo has built the "Tetsubo system" and therefor he is happpy with it (though he has not renamed the system yet) and he is soo happy with it and cannot understand _why_ people are unhappy with 3RD after all it just took 10,000+ decisions to make his happy system.

they presented a core system with a setting that was customizable to meet other setting needed. Thats what i have been saying. I have said repeatedly that if your do not like the setting provided it is customizable to meet your needs. This is in contrast to the hero spawned opinions which seem to see it as unalterable... they seem to want to compare the canned setting to their own setting, after they created it, and somehow to draw from that a conclusion about the underlying systems.

Then again, thats already been covered.

Even when you have degenerated into mostly barbs and insults, it seems you are having an easier time refuting what you want to imagine i said, as opposed to what the discussion actually was.

That figures.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

So poor misunderstood Tetsubo goes out and tries to suffer the slings and arrows and encourages the misunderstood masses to play the system he is so haapy with.


Actually, i tend to refute claims of superiority.

But that actually starts to look at the discussions made and bypasses the whole insults and barbed stage, so i can understand how you missed that.

Look, i think even I can see you have long since left the realm of discussion and i am happy to leave you to wallow in your own little world of barbs and insults.

Maybe one day you will get a handle on your self-control issues and rejoin the land of discussion. I know that, for me, if your posts were taken as indicatiove of HERO gamers, and it seems for many they are, that it would not tend to make me wants to rush out and join that community by participating and buying into that game line.

Enjoy your games.

[Killer Shrike]

D-Man, just do what I do; "Ignore" tesuji. He's just a troll. A troll with a good command of the language and reasoning abilities, but a troll nonetheless. IMO he's just an "Im right and everyone else is wrong" kind of person. And he is occasionally right, which gives his posts just enough substance to bait you into responding. You cant get involved in a discussion with a person like that because they spend all thier efforts on convincing you that thier way is the only way; there is no actual sharing of ideas -- he starts off from a position and does not budge.


PLONK PLONK PLONK

[Jhamin]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
However in D&D if my Primary stat(s) exceed certain limits I have to multiply my xp by 10%. and If my gm gives them out weekly i have to do the same bsic calculation weekly. most Xp totals come out to things like 1537 or 2462. in a low campaingn that xp calculatin can mean the difference between one week and the next of leveling.


In the "for whatever it's worth" catagory, this is a rule that existed in 1st & 2nd edition, but was removed for 3rd edition.

Some may still use it, but it isn't in the rules anymore.

I suspect we may be dealing with what folks remember from 10 years ago rather than what the rules actually say.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
D-Man, just do what I do; "Ignore" tesuji. He's just a troll. A troll with a good command of the language and reasoning abilities, but a troll nonetheless. IMO he's just an "Im right and everyone else is wrong" kind of person. And he is occasionally right, which gives his posts just enough substance to bait you into responding. You cant get involved in a discussion with a person like that because they spend all thier efforts on convincing you that thier way is the only way; there is no actual sharing of ideas -- he starts off from a position and does not budge.


PLONK PLONK PLONK

Yeah -- I just wanted to have one of those cathartic experiences one of my gamers [a psychiatrist] is always trying to induce in his patients.

I thought the priceless part was that he tried to respond to it in rational manner.

:p

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Jhamin
In the "for whatever it's worth" catagory, this is a rule that existed in 1st & 2nd edition, but was removed for 3rd edition.

Some may still use it, but it isn't in the rules anymore.

I suspect we may be dealing with what folks remember from 10 years ago rather than what the rules actually say.

Thats pretty much what I expected, that it was just a case of his misunderstanding the rules again, hence my unwillingness to take up his go fish for it notion.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by D-Man
Yeah -- I just wanted to have one of those cathartic experiences one of my gamers [a psychiatrist] is always trying to induce in his patients.

I thought the priceless part was that he tried to respond to it in rational manner.
:p

Clearly such as radical an approach as trying to respond rationally does seem out of place in these parts.

Live and learn.

I will try and not make that mistake with your posts in the future.

enjoy your games.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
He's just a troll.


I think if i am to continue actively engaging in discussions on these boards i really must get more into the "just call the other guy names" swing of things that seems to replace discussion round here.

Hmmm...

then again, there is much to be said for not only having people who don't like my posts and call me names but to have people who take time to actively try and warn others off from discussions.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by tesuji
Clearly such as radical an approach as trying to respond rationally does seem out of place in these parts.

Live and learn.

I will try and not make that mistake with your posts in the future.

enjoy your games.

Maybe the "/Rant Mode On!" should have been your first clue.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by D-Man
Maybe the "/Rant Mode On!" should have been your first clue.

I usually consider rant mode on tags to be an indication of the tone to be expected within a post, but often find that even while the user is in this tone of post he often intends some of his points made to be actually points he means to make... ie inspite of the flavor, that posters often do have some little bit of substance.

For example, the initial post in this thread seemed, in spite of being a rant, to be expressing a concern over his players and he with a miscommunication issue. Taking a sec to familiarize yourself with the thread, you will see that the posts in respoinse to his rant did indeed take the notion of giving serious responses, even though it was a thread where he put rant warning in his title.

I actually thought you were trying to make a point about your perception of the folly in discussing so heatedly as subjective a topic... and that you just decided to wrap making that point in a rant... much like the thread starter himself was making a point wrapped in a rant.

Anyway, it seems clear that some posters do sometimes wrap points in their rants and that others do not.

I wont make the mistake of assuming your posts have a point in the future, so there wont be any such misunderstandings.

Enjoy your games

[Nightshade]

I have been out of town for a while, so I haven't had a chance to respond:

The fireball weilding fighter was not my idea. I would have to see the rationalization of such a character before I allowed it. Even then, I wouldn't have considered it magic.

As to the question of whether someone can have the 22 combat skill levels or whatever without training, the answer seems rather logical to me. Skills are LEARNED. Therefore, you have to do something to learn them. Training may be one of the ways you get them, but experience (you know, actually doing it) is also a good reason to get better at a skill.

The multiclass penalty that was referenced was ONLY in 3rd edition, as multiclassing worked completely differently in both 1st and 2nd ed. The rule (IIRC, this is not a direct quote) is that all classes have to be within 2 levels of each other or they take a penalty. The exception is if the higher class is the racially preferred class. For humans and half-elves, the preferred class is any, so they in effect have to have 3 classes for this to kick in, and the top one is ignored. This means that you would need 3 classes, the two lowest level classes being 3 or more levels apart before you hit this penalty.

Of course, this really isn't a rule, anyway. Races are arguably more part of the setting than the classes are, not part of the system. This means referencing them in any way as part of D&D is immaterial, because it isn't D&D, its Greyhawk. I'm sure that I saw THAT caveat in the rule book somewhere. :rolleyes:

As to arguing tesuji's post as to how to reference how my world works within the confines of the system, I use the Campaign Creation worksheet that was in the Fantasy HERO book for 4 ed. I can explain the magic system, skill changes (I now state for all new players that Security Systems covers finding and removing traps for my fantasy game), and any other system items in about 15 minutes for those who are familiar with HERO. It obviously takes longer if you aren't familiar.

Of course, it would take a little bit longer to explain my world in D&D, as I would have to go over the magic system (10 minutes, tops), all of the class differences (don't know how long that will take), as other minor system items (I can't think of any, right now).

I am still unsure where you are getting that I created my world specifically for HERO. I don't use HERO that way. I create ideas for worlds and then pick a system to do it in that works for it.

For example, I have a game based upon the setting published in The Everlasting. The system is not complete, specifically, the power creation and magic systems. I also had a real problem with the skill system (although not the skill resolution system). Since this game is very similar to the White Wolf World of Darkness, I figured that I'd try it in the Storyteller system. However, there were problems with the importing of set powers and the freeform magic that the setting required. In effect, I would need a combination of Werewolf and Mage (the rituals and gifts worked well, in concept, with the powers in how they worked, where the Mage magic system is very similar in style to that proposed in the Everlasting). The major issue came when I had to figure how to rank the gifts vs. magic in terms of costs. The relative values became pretty messy, and my wife said that it was too confusing (she's good at making me explain stuff).

I then put it into HERO. The skills and powers were easy, but the only way to get the magic to work would be VPP's, which is only easily done if you have experienced HERO players, in my experience. It is a solution, but the learning curve is pretty high.

In my opinion, the system that comes with the Everlasting would be the best solution, if only it were complete. The second best was HERO, since it already had some relative point costs already done for me and I knew the system would work. The Storyteller solution was still viable (in my mind), but needed more polish, which was time I'd rather spend on other things.

I'd actually never considered d20, although considering the high-magic setting, I suppose it is possible. However, there would have to be some sort of power creation system for me to use, along with a freeform magic system somewhere. I don't want to write my own system for this thing, so I can't see how I would even attempt it.

So, right now I use HERO for it. When (if) they ever publish the complete system for it, I'll see how it goes. Personally, I think that it will work better, but who knows?

That is the same thought process I used when I created my fantasy world. I knew that I didn't want to use a published setting, but I did want to use a published system. So, I created my world concept and tried doing it with several games (Palladium, RuneQuest, 2nd ed AD&D, HERO, and even ARIA). The one that was the most functional for me was HERO. So, that's what I use.

Just as a matter of reference, I never once stated that D&D wasn't a good system. As a matter of point, I stated that D&D is perfectly good for what D&D is good at. I have stated, over and over, that if your world is modelled by D&D, then you should use D&D.

I will say, however, that people on any D&D forum would do more than shout down someone who posted that D&D was inferior in any way to any other fantasy system. In addition, I can't think of a forum where people wouldn't object to someone coming on the board and stating that the system supporting the forum was as bad as tesuji has made it out to be.

And, finally, I do not understand the point that we should take a psychological limitation concerning math, difficulty in math, or whatever. The biggest criticism for HERO is how complicated it is, mathwise. I just don't understand the problem here. We are talking about multiplication and division, here. These are things I learned in 3rd grade, when I was eight. If you don't want to calculate 45*2.25/1.75, on paper, I can understand that. Use a calculator. Use HERO Designer. Use a spreadsheet. It isn't really isn't that bad. We aren't talking differential equations here. This isn't algebra, geometry, statistics, or calculus. This is arithmetic.

I will have to state, however, that D&D does not have nearly the math that HERO does, especially in the character creation system. While HERO uses 3rd grade math, D&D uses 1st grade math, for the most part. It is only addition and subtraction, with very minimal multiplication and division, usually using very simple numbers.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Nightshade

And, finally, I do not understand the point that we should take a psychological limitation concerning math, difficulty in math, or whatever. The biggest criticism for HERO is how complicated it is, mathwise. I just don't understand the problem here. We are talking about multiplication and division, here. These are things I learned in 3rd grade, when I was eight. If you don't want to calculate 45*2.25/1.75, on paper, I can understand that. Use a calculator. Use HERO Designer. Use a spreadsheet. It isn't really isn't that bad. We aren't talking differential equations here. This isn't algebra, geometry, statistics, or calculus. This is arithmetic.


Since this is the area you admit to not understanding i will try and explain it...

I will use your quote as was done already once...

Nightshade said from about page 5...
"You don't like HERO. It is heavy handed and includes too much math. I think that D&D is EXTREMELY heavy handed and includes so many rules of the "because that's how it works" variety and forces players into situations that they and GM's may not like. The math involved in HERO I learned in 3rd grade. It is obviously truly difficult, since 8 year olds are expected to master it, but whatever"

This is a not atypical HERO poster response to criticisms about hero having too much math. The immediate response, usually snide in nature, about the complexity of math and the relatively simple aspersion to the complainers math level.

The key is this...

"too much math" and "too complex math" are, except in the eyes of HERO gamers, two completely different topics. In another thread, I likened ot to going to get groceries and having the choice between one store which makes you add up your own bill and calculate your sales tax and another store which scans the prices for you and computes tax. It has nothing to do with whether thats 3rd grade math or Ap calculus, its not a measure of who is smarter or not or any of the silly "i learned how to do division in 3rd grade" nonsense that HERO players throw out in reasonse to the "too much math" complaint.

It simply has to do with the effort and time spent. 100 simple calculations can become very tedius. I created over 90 characters as NPCS so far for a current game i am running, for a system i have been using for just a few months. I would NOT DREAM of doing that much work in HERO if i only had a few months experience with it.

So, in spite of almost every HERO player response i have ever seen which somehow fails...even when they themselves type both in the same paragraph... it is about the amount of math... not the complexity. But in reasponse after response, just like yours, the hero community seems to feel amount and complexity are the same thing?

Sounds like a psyche lim to me.

Do not take it personally. i have seen this very same switcheroo in mid statements over and over again on these boards. You are seeming typical round here, and should not take this observation as a personal insult.

[Killer Shrike]

Plonk

[Yamo]

tesuji,

Listen, this is a very simple concept, and while I believe you may be feigning ignorance of it in order to facilitate your trolling, I don't believe for a second that you don't understand it.

This is a HERO SYSTEM board. It's very, very clear that you like Dungeons & Dragons and lot more than you do Hero System. Well, guess what? Yeah, that's right: Nobody cares. Why? Because it's not proper to come here just to repeatedly (and, might I add, unimaginatively and monotonously) put down Hero System in favor of some other game. I don't know of anyone here who has nothing better to do than try to get their jollies by whizzing in other gamers' Wheaties the way you do. We don't go to the D&D boards just to tell them how inferior their silly system is to HERO. You do just that here, and it's childish and unseemly.

So take it elsewhere. Putting down system X in favor of system Y on a system X-dedicated forum is textbook trolling plain and simple and it's not making you any friends here. Grow up a little.

And welcome to my ignore list. :rolleyes:

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Yamo
tesuji,

Listen, this is a very simple concept, and while I believe you may be feigning ignorance of it in order to facilitate your trolling, I don't believe for a second that you don't understand it.

This is a HERO SYSTEM board. It's very, very clear that you like Dungeons & Dragons and lot more than you do Hero System. Well, guess what? Yeah, that's right: Nobody cares. Why? Because it's not proper to come here just to repeatedly (and, might I add, unimaginatively and monotonously) put down Hero System in favor of some other game. I don't know of anyone here who has nothing better to do than try to get their jollies by whizzing in other gamers' Wheaties the way you do. We don't go to the D&D boards just to tell them how inferior their silly system is to HERO. You do just that here, and it's childish and unseemly.

So take it elsewhere. Putting down system X on a system X-dedicated forum is textbook trolling plain and simple and it's not making you any friends here. Grow up a little.

And welcome to my ignore list. :rolleyes:

Here here! Welcome to the "Ignoring Tesuji Club"

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Here here! Welcome to the "Ignoring Tesuji Club"

Who? I went looking and couldn't see any of their posts... :p

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by D-Man
Who? I went looking and couldn't see any of their posts... :p I wonder, do we need a secret handshake? :D

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Yamo

I don't believe for a second that you don't understand it.

Of course i understand it. That is not the issue.

I don't agree with it.

I don't believe the hero board is intended by most users and the creators to be a board where only happy hero thoughts are allowed and where criticisms of the hero system are verbotten along with the posters that make them.

Instead, i find it much more in keeping with the other posts i see and the board policies for those who do not like participating in such discussions, who just want to avoid such to simply not participate in them.

personally, i think loud ranting about why someone should not be posting and trying to drive them away and telling them to go post somewhere else etc etc etc to the point of making the name calling go away posts disrupt and interfere with other disucssions to be much more unacceptable than criticism.

But, that may be just me. i see a huge difference between saying someone who decides "i dont like this guys posts so i will ignore them" and who does so and someone who decides that as his cute parting shot he must make a post decalring to the world how he is now going to ignore the guy and at the same time lets slip in some name calling... or even worse, the guy who after deciding he would ignore a poster goes out and actively recruits others to do so.

I mean, in what world is criticizing a system worse board courtesy than the above?


Originally posted by Yamo

This is a HERO SYSTEM board. It's very, very clear that you like Dungeons & Dragons and lot more than you do Hero System. Well, guess what? Yeah, that's right: Nobody cares. Why? Because it's not proper to come here just to repeatedly (and, might I add, unimaginatively and monotonously) put down Hero System in favor of some other game.

I don't meet your definition of proper? Gosh, then it is probably a good thing I am not posting on your boards.

Originally posted by Yamo

I don't know of anyone here who has nothing better to do than try to get their jollies by whizzing in other gamers' Wheaties the way you do. We don't go to the D&D boards just to tell them how inferior their silly system is to HERO. You do just that here, and it's childish and unseemly.

Suffice it to say that your interpretation and characterization of what I do is not the same as mine.

Originally posted by Yamo

So take it elsewhere. Putting down system X in favor of system Y on a system X-dedicated forum is textbook trolling plain and simple and it's not making you any friends here. Grow up a little.

Actually some would consider exhorbitant name calling to be trolling. I understand that you think i am trolling. I do not agree.

Originally posted by Yamo

And welcome to my ignore list. :rolleyes:


Thats the best news i have gotten all day. Thanks, and i sincerely mean that. I figure frankly that once enough of the "speak ill of hero and i will grow enraged" frothers get to the point that they don't step in and try to derail discussions i am involved in with their overbearing "thou should not be posting here" rhetoric things will go a lot smoother and more discussion will be had.

[Nightshade]

Let's see if there's a difference in ways to respond here:

Question: I really dislike how the Fantasy HERO book did the Spell College thing. I'd like a magic system that allows more spell effect freedom, so that my mages have more of a variety of spells. I also want them to have access more spells, especially as they get more experienced. How do I do that, yet make them so that they aren't too powerful compared to non-magic characters?

Option 1: Post a magic system that uses some sort of power framework, but with limitations, such as charges, required use of endurance reserves, or other required limitations to make them more balanced.

Option 2: Suggest that they use D&D (or any other system) to play their game because they have a better way of doing it.

Okay. They posted the question on the HERO forums. This usually means that they are expecting something similar to option 1.

Now reverse the situation:

Question: I really hate how the PHB does magic. I want a more focused magic system that allows wizards to have fewer spells, but more powerful ones. I also want them to be able to cast more often per day.

Option 1: Point them to a d20 book that has a different magic system.

Option 2: Point them to a different system that has that type of magic.

Again, if this were on a D&D board (or d20 board, for that matter), I would assume that they are looking for something similar to option 1. Why? Because they posted it on the D&D/d20 forums.

As to your math rant. The first part of your post, you complain about the tedious nature of the math. The next part, you state that you created however many NPC's for another system, something you would never do with only a couple months of experience with HERO.

Hmmm.... You wouldn't do it with only a couple months of experience. I'm sure its due to how tedious it is. That's certainly the implictation there.

But, I will say this. I find using a calculator to figure out the power costs 6 or 7 times much less tedious than being limited in what characters I can create, use, play, and develop. I have written up many NPC's for my Fantasy HERO game, by hand, on paper and can do any character in about 45 minutes, most of which is actually spent writing. It isn't particularly tedious, because the only time I need to do any calculating is when I have spells. The rest of the time, it is stats, skills, perks, and talents, which mostly have fixed costs. The only math involved is addition and subtraction for most non-wizard characters, much like d20.




I don't believe the hero board is intended by most users and the creators to be a board where only happy hero thoughts are allowed and where criticisms of the hero system are verbotten along with the posters that make them.



I also don't believe that the HERO board is intended by most users or the creatores to be only about happy HERO thoughts and without criticism. However, that is NOT what you are doing. At its heart, you are advertising for a competitor's product, which I highly doubt DOJ is looking for here. In addition, you are not criticizing HERO in any meaningful manner. These are all arguements that have been heard before on GENERAL RPG forums, such as rpg.net and others. HERO is too complicated, HERO is too easily abused, its too hard to make your character, there's too much work because there are no prebuilt spells, etc.

The response on these are always that same: HERO isn't as complicated as most people think it is, ANY system can be abused (the GM must be able to say no), the character generation is only difficult if you think that the math is difficult, and there are prebuilt spells in some books, it's just that some people didn't particularly like the way that they did it.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

Let's see if there's a difference in ways to respond here:
Question: I really dislike how the Fantasy HERO book did...
Option 1: Post a magic system that uses some sort of power framework, but...
Option 2: Suggest that they use D&D (or any other system) to play their game because they have a better way of doing it.
Okay. They posted the question on the HERO forums. This usually means that they are expecting something similar to option 1.

OK, Nightshade i apologise for the bluntness of this response, but have you read this thread?

I mean, your examples are all well and good as to how you would like others to post and, if i had chimed in on the end of this thread i would think you were somehow likening my participation in this thread to option 2.

Unfortunately, for you, i have been here since the beginning.

In response to the first poster's questions, a rant in which he did reference D&D, i responded with an answer to his questions that DID NOT REFERENCE DND AT ALL!

Here it is from page 1.. in its entirety...

Originally posted by tesuji
Actually, while people keep talking about flexible "systems" this is actually a world definition thing.

Wizards cannot wear armor and only clerics can heal and rogues dont learn greatswords often is a small set of world defining aspects. They show the players how things work in the world. Your players are naturally falling back on the "fantasy worlds" they have the most experience with and its probably for a very simple reason.

"you do not seem to have defined your game world and its limits for them. The entire notion of "Only limitations are the ones you want " is practically anti-defining.

For example... if they want to play a toddler "normal human" who is as smart of the worlds smartest sage and has strength of 8 men, would you go sure? if they wanted to play a "normal human" who had six arms and a tail, would that be OK? Or are you going to stop and say "well that doesn't make sense?"

At the point that you stop them and say "that doesn't make sense?" you have just admitted "well there are some limitations... i just haven't told you about them."

Can your player choose a strength based skill for his magic skill roll? This way he can be a fighter mage and not have to fret with watsing points boosting int or ego.

******************************

It boils down to something very simple... if you, the gm, had given your players a guide to "how things work in this fantasy world" they would know these things and try to play within your world as it makes sense and is explained. lacking a world definition, lacking a sense of things, and lacking any instructions as to what should be expected as normal... people are going to fill in the blanks with what is comfortable.

Should they expect normal squirrels to rush at them wielding two handed swords? Should this be seen in your world as just another hazard for those who do not drop adequate nutly offerings to the squirrel god?

What he described seemd to me to be a communication issue and I addressed it as such, trying to point him to ways he can improve on the situation.

I did not tell him to go use DND. I did not mention DND in my answer to his question.

The first time i mentioned DND was in response to SOMEONE ELSE who was making claims about DND... it comes from page 2 and here it is in its entirety...

EDIT: Adding the quote i responded to...

"There are a fair number of game systems (Gurps, Palladium, Shadowrun, etc.) where it is theoretically possible (but maybe extremely difficult) for a character to advance without ever having entered combat once. This is impossible in D&D (definitely impossible in the first two editions, I have not extensively played the third)."

END EDIT



Originally posted by tesuji
In DND 3e experience and advancement comes from one thing... overcoming the challenges presented.

if your Gm runs a scenario where the challenges are all combat based, where the key to freeing the princess is killing her captors, then thats the way they will advance in that game. If the Gm however scripts the challenge so that other means are possible, even perhaps required, then those become the possibilities.

For example, perhaps her captors are not just mindless fiends but crooks out for loot. then acting as a go between working out the ransom would be an option. Also, if your party is stealthy not brutish, then perhaps sneaking in and stealing her back might be it. Or, if the princess was kidnapped for some other reason, perhaps in retaliation for a kidnapping of the "villain's" son, then finding the son, exposing the root cause may well be the solution and the means of beating the challenge with social or investigative means.

Now, this said, the makers of DND 3e were not morons. They realized something that most people here may secretly admit to when they think no one is around... most oif the time, fantasy stories and legends and films and the like tend to favor stories where fighting the bad guy plays a vital role... and yes, even among the roleplaying purists who wax poeteically about character who NEVER enter combat, have to admit they those characters are rarely the stars, the heroes, the PCS of those stories, films, and legends. So, not being morons, the guys at WOTC did spend a bit more on detailing the challenge system and xp for combat encounters and combat oriented challenges than they did for the non-combat ones... because they figure that would be more frequently the case.

Its not impossible to advance without combat. The nature of the challenge is set by the GM when he defines his scenario, not by the rulebook.

You will note that i did not feed a Go use DND answer to someone looking for hero advice. I did not even reference DND until someone ELSE made inaccurate comments about the DND mechanics.


Originally posted by Nightshade

Now reverse the situation:

Question: I really hate how the PHB does magic. Option 1: Point them to a d20 book that has a different magic system.
Option 2: Point them to a different system that has that type of magic.
Again, if this were on a D&D board (or d20 board, for that matter), I would assume that they are looking for something similar to option 1. Why? Because they posted it on the D&D/d20 forums.

And... that has any bearing on what I posted here on this thread...how?

I did not answer a question about "how to hero" with "go dnd" at all. I answered the question without mentioning DND at all. I only answered comments ABOUT DND with DND... then the whole thing snowballed into DND vs HERO thing.

If i was running round these boards answering "how to hero" questions with "go DND" I would understand your complaint.

I typically, however, answer HOW TO HERO questions with HERo answers or if they are more GMing in nature with GMing advice. Heck, there is a thread on damage shield in the rules forum right now where i have participated actively and debated strongly and i never once mentioned DND.

Know why? No one in that thread started tossing anti-DND barbs or making inaccurate references to DND system stuff.

Can you get that distinction? You haven't so far.



Originally posted by Nightshade


As to your math rant. The first part of your post, you complain about the tedious nature of the math. The next part, you state that you created however many NPC's for another system, something you would never do with only a couple months of experience with HERO.

Hmmm.... You wouldn't do it with only a couple months of experience. I'm sure its due to how tedious it is. That's certainly the implictation there.

Is it so hard to believe that more math involved in a process, significantly more math, can make some people not enjoy the process as much?


Originally posted by Nightshade

But, I will say this. I find using a calculator to figure out the power costs 6 or 7 times much less tedious than being limited in what characters I can create, use, play, and develop.

In both system, you are limited by which characters, races, abilities et al the Gm is willing to allow into his game.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I have written up many NPC's for my Fantasy HERO game, by hand, on paper and can do any character in about 45 minutes, most of which is actually spent writing. It isn't particularly tedious, because the only time I need to do any calculating is when I have spells. The rest of the time, it is stats, skills, perks, and talents, which mostly have fixed costs. The only math involved is addition and subtraction for most non-wizard characters, much like d20.

I would argue that, from the spells i see in FH, the math involved for wizards in HFH is much greater in amount that that needed for DND wizards... and DND wizards are the most accounting heavy class in my experience in DND.

However, the math issue was to bring to light two important points.. one, which you ignored again, was the difference between amount and complexity and the repeated hero player switch of the two when complaints are made... the second was that the amount of math makes hero problematic to some in terms of the work involved...

Again, i am not alone in thinking the hero system so ponderous it gets in the way of bringing new players in... start searching these boards for references to sidekick, the hero lite product designed to attack new players by reducing the system to something more new user friendly.

Maybe, for you, a veteran, the system math is not "in the way", maybe for you, a veteran, the system is not too ponderous to teach new players, certainly for gaming greoups with hero veterans making up the group, the learning curve has already been breacked...

But, AS I SAID, for me, who makes a point to bring in a new player with every campaign, a heavy system is a PROBLEM not an advantage.

This is even avoiding the whole issue of whether the math does anything meaningful or just seems to.

Anyway, your points about answering hero questions with go dnd and so forth are really wonderful points... they may even have some merit... but they do not appear very much related to this thread and my posts at all. i answered non-dnd question (even tho it did mention DND) with non-DND answers (which even got some praise from the non-say-bad-hero-stuff-hulk-get-madder-than-hornet crowd) and did not even mention DND until DND issues were raised BY OTHERS.

Sorry if my facts get in the way of your rage.

It was a good rage, a well done rage.

Kudos for that.

[Nightshade]

I am not angry. I have never lost my temper, and I have never called you any names. I am also the only person who has stated that you have had some good points. Again, and I'm sure that I have stated this more than three times now, I got into this thread by AGREEING WITH YOU. Particularly as to your points with D&D.

However, you have since gone completely off the topic (admittedly with help) and have bashed HERO in every possible way. That is simply rude. The reason isn't because we are rabid fans of HERO and can't stand criticism. It's simply because these are the HERO boards and you have attempted to slam everyone who even attempts to defend the system.

I will also point out that I have read all of the thread, and really, what does your initial post have to do with what I was talking about?

Just to say it again:

You are being rude. You are being insulting. You are being a poor guest on these boards put up by a company to promote their products.

Now, to your points:

I get the distinction. I understand your point. Here is my point:

Just because someone insults D&D on the HERO boards does not give you the right to insult, annoy, and belittle people as you have done. Many people have posted rebuttles to your claims. If you had a good point, I have stated so. If I had a good point, you have either ignored it or attempted to wave it away as a nuance or triviality.

Many times you have done with D&D what you are accusing me of doing for HERO.




Is it so hard to believe that more math involved in a process, significantly more math, can make some people not enjoy the process as much?


No. That isn't hard to believe.

What I find difficult to believe is that people make and buy programs to make their D&D characters easier, and HERO makes a product to do the same, and then people complain about the math in HERO. If the math bothers you so, get the program.

I also find it difficult to believe that it is THAT much more difficult. It really doesn't take me much longer to make a Fantasy HERO character than a 3rd ed. D&D character on paper without the programs. I understand that this is/can be a hang up, but with a calculator, I really just don't see it.

Maybe it is because I have done so many. I think you may be right on that point.

I agree with your point that it is the GM that should limit what is available for characters to play.

However, the correlary to this is that it is the GM who should do this, not the system. I have argued the point from the beginning of this discussion that it is easier to do this with HERO than D&D. Not that it isn't possible to do this in D&D, just that it isn't as simple to do.




I would argue that, from the spells i see in FH, the math involved for wizards in HFH is much greater in amount that that needed for DND wizards... and DND wizards are the most accounting heavy class in my experience in DND.

However, the math issue was to bring to light two important points.. one, which you ignored again, was the difference between amount and complexity and the repeated hero player switch of the two when complaints are made... the second was that the amount of math makes hero problematic to some in terms of the work involved...

Again, i am not alone in thinking the hero system so ponderous it gets in the way of bringing new players in... start searching these boards for references to sidekick, the hero lite product designed to attack new players by reducing the system to something more new user friendly.

[\quote]

I never argued that HERO didn't require more math. I would argue that a high level wizard will require more work than a High Fantasy HERO wizard (I assume that is what you mean by HFH). The reason is that the experienced wizard creation rules don't exist for number of spells they get. You could go the 2 per level thing and assume that they never got access to anyone's spellbook, but as a player I would argue that.

If what you mean is that a beginning wizard in HERO takes longer than in D&D, I again would argue that, since once a player has a concept for the magic, it really isn't hard to create.

I will address the math issue once again, and use the exact same idea that I stated before:

If you are not using magic, the amount (not the complexity) of math is the same. Number of points total, subtract skills, talents, stats, perks, etc. vs. number of points for stats, number of points for ranks, pick feats. The only time the advantage/limitation system (the one most often complained about) ever occurs in my fantasy game (this obviously isn't always the case) is with spells. D&D only requires wizards to pick their spells (set number). HERO requires players to make their spells, which indeed takes more math (simple math, but math).

Here is my point, though. Most of the time (the exception is if you are using power frameworks for magic, which I do not), the character only has a few spells. This means that the amount of math involved really isn't that much. A starting wizard may only have something like 6 or 7 spells. That means doing the math 6 or 7 times. I'll grant you that this is 6 or 7 times more than D&D, but that is not excessive in my mind.

As to the HERO lite threads, I have never agreed with that approach. The complexity of the system is over 90% in the character creation and advancement system (since a point is a point). The way to make it easier for people to play HERO, IMO is by releasing more products like the Until superpowers guide book. The Fantasy HERO Grimiore will greatly help me with new players get their spells much more easily.

I have taught 13 and 14 year olds to play HERO. People who have not played any game at all, as well as those who only played D&D. I did the character creation, though, since that was too much all at once. Once they got the hang of how other mechanics worked (increasing skill rolls, experience, attack rolls, skill rolls vs. stat checks, etc.) they started to create their own spells, and then their own characters. They were very happy with that (and now pretty much only play HERO).

[quote]

Anyway, your points about answering hero questions with go dnd and so forth are really wonderful points... they may even have some merit... but they do not appear very much related to this thread and my posts at all. i answered non-dnd question (even tho it did mention DND) with non-DND answers (which even got some praise from the non-say-bad-hero-stuff-hulk-get-madder-than-hornet crowd) and did not even mention DND until DND issues were raised BY OTHERS.



I think that you get a lot of the credit for degrading the thread to the D&D sucks, HERO is better; no its not direction this thread took. I would also give you a lot of the credit for why people got so upset. Just from your last post:

"Unfortunately, for you, i have been here since the beginning."

"Can you get that distinction? You haven't so far."

"non-say-bad-hero-stuff-hulk-get-madder-than-hornet crowd"

"Sorry if my facts get in the way of your rage.

It was a good rage, a well done rage.

Kudos for that."

Now, if someone did that to you, would you get upset? Of course, and IMO reasonably so. But you will notice that my posts have not done any of this. The only time I may have even given you a jibe was when, in response to a snide comment from you, I reworded a snide comment back, or when I posted that I thought it was amusing that most of the current discussion started by people (not only you) flying off the handle partially from a post I sent AGREEING WITH YOU! I still find that hilarious, btw.

I haven't raged against you. I never have. I'll admit that some have, and I will say that I don't agree with some of the responses from them, but you have to admit, some of the venom unleashed was from your side of the fence.

Actually, now that I say that, I'll also take some of the responsibility for that. I will admit that sometimes I did not explain myself properly, did not have a full grasp of some of the rules, and put up some very bad examples. That lowered the quality of the discussion and can be very annoying. For that, I appologize.

I think I can sum up where we disagree. If you would like to continue this conversation, I am more than willing to address the following points:

1) I believe that a class based system is too constrictive for the character development, even the vastly improved system used in D&D.
2) I believe that the classes in the PHB (but not in the DMG or any of the various supplemental books) are an inherent part of the "official" d20 fantasy game called D&D. Therefore, it is fair to discuss them as part of the D&D system, but not part of the d20 system. My interpretation is that it is the prestige classes that are setting specific and the basic classes are genre specific.
3) I believe that in some circumstances, HERO is a better fantasy system than D&D because it is more easility customized to fit your game than D&D.
4) I believe that HERO's skill resolution system is better than D&D, as it is less likely that in an opposed skill vs. skill contest that a low skilled character to beat a much more skilled character.
5) I believe that HERO has a better character development system as the players have a more uniform way to increase and obtain skills with experience than in D&D.
6) I believe that HERO does have more math and a steeper learning curve than D&D, but that it is not something that is particularly difficult to overcome, given the opportunity.
7) I believe that D&D is a good system for those fantasy worlds that D&D is good at, such as high magic, high fantasy games.

These are what I believe, and a short description of why I believe it. I invite all of those who are ignoring me or tesuji to stop that and join in a constructive discussion on the topic. What I don't want is for this to get into a shouting match or lots of insults. If you would like, I can start a new thread just for this purpose.

I'd like to know your thoughts.

Nightshade

[Killer Shrike]

I agree with all of your final points/beliefs Nightshade.

However, its not worth discussing because tesuji is not, regardless of how often he claims to be, interested in an actual exchange of ideas. He is firm in his beliefs and will not unbend. He ignores or marginalizes points he cant address, and spends the rest of the time alternating between belittling any who disagree with him and accentuating any actual points he may have beyond thier original context or out of proportion with thier actual impact.

As Yamo pointed out, going onto a board dedicated to a particular topic only to bad mouth it, "play devils advocate", or detract from it is classic troll behavior. Its similar to a a person of 1 religion going into a church of a different religion to point out all the reasons why thier religion isnt as good as his, from his perspective. Its tactless, rude, and irritating. Continuing to converse with people like that only encourages them.

Personally I cant imagine wasting my own time trolling on some other game board; Ive got 10000001 better things to do with my time. Nevertheless, some seem to have nothing better to do than antagonize others. Please stop feeding tesuji; let him spin his wheels and eventually when he realizes that nobody cares he'll lose interest and leave. Thanx!

[Rene]

I hope you guys don't mind a newbie butting in in the discussion, and also trying to relate to the problems the original poster of this thread was talking about, that discussion about fantasy paradigms and D&D cliches and all that...

Even though I owned Champions 4th Edition, I've played much more D&D than HERO. I'm still learning HERO. Sincerely, I don't think it's the math that scares away some serious players from HERO (and I mean serious here, not "let's kill some monsters this afternoon" players).

No, the biggest difficulty with the HERO System is the "reasoning from effect" stuff, IMO. People aren't used to that and most never quite get the knack of doing it. They're just too hang up on "laundry list" kind of thinking. I've seen intelligent, resourceful players that just can't wrap their heads around "reasoning from effect". They'll play HERO, but only if the GM comes up with a VERY detailed description of possible "professions" of the game-world and very detailed lists of available powers.

So I don't think HERO will ever be the kind of pop phenomenom D&D is. And I think that is fine. I see the two games as appealing to different people. If you want to play a action-heavy game and you don't mind company-made worlds, then why bother with HERO?

Of course, HERO has it's niche too. D&D is more flexible now than it has ever been and you can change and create a great many things with it. But still it's D&D, and it has some built-in paradigms. Some D&D players don't even notice the paradigms anymore, they seem to think the fantasy genre *is* D&D, because they're so much into D&D. It is not. Get a dozen of the best fantasy writers working today. Read their books. You just can't use D&D to simulate a single one of them. And that is HERO's niche.

Me and some friends, we were thinking about doing a campaign based on George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire". They all knew D&D, so we tried using D&D. And then we came to the conclusion that we'd had to discard 80% of D&D and make everything ourselves. We made some progress in devising a whole new magic system, tons of new classes, changing most of the combat rules, making new feats to represent social advantages, etc. And most of it felt pretty wrong anyway, despite our best efforts. We got to the point of thinking about discarding the whole concept of classes and levels and using only d20 basic rules.

And then I had an idea. I was the only one who knew HERO. "Hey, we're not using D&D anymore, we're pratically trying to write a whole new system, so we might as well use this big book I have. It's designed just to create tailor-made campaigns."

And almost everything from "A Song of Ice and Fire" worked wonderfully well in HERO. Real smooth. And I'm not even a expert in HERO.

Anytime I read any fantasy novel I can easily visualize most of the characters and abilities and the world in HERO. I can't do the same with D&D. And when I have completely original ideas about worlds and stuff, HERO feels way more confortable as a tool to make them real, much more than D&D can ever hope to be.

I don't say this to put down D&D or to imply you can't "change" stuff in D&D. I've know GMs that run D&D campaigns that are very unique and contain lots of details that differ considerably from the official books. Still, they're all inside what I call the "D&D subgenre" of fantasy, a subgenre that feels limiting to me. It don't feels limiting to them, because they're so into it that they see D&D as the whole of fantasy. But that is fine, they're having fun. Good for them.

So I see HERO as a system for those of us hoping to simulate worlds taken from fantasy literature, or original worlds more influenced by fantasy literature than gaming-company concepts. Or the veteran players tired of laundry-list systems who want to go really wild.

For the newbie player who don't read fantasy literature or even the more experienced guy who is quite happy just with the experience of swinging a sword or casting a spell, D&D is way better.

BTW, Dragon Magazine recently published some "A Song of Ice and Fire" conversions done with D&D. Pretty much every ASOIAF fan I know think it's horrible, jerry-built and downright nonsensical, even the ones who actually like D&D.

[Le Schtroumpf]

Personally? I like feeding the occasional troll. It can be very interesting to see how they will insult themselves next. And sometimes they do kick loose some good points.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Killer Shrike


However, its not worth discussing because tesuji is not, regardless of how often he claims to be, interested in an actual exchange of ideas. He is firm in his beliefs and will not unbend. He ignores or marginalizes points he cant address, and spends the rest of the time alternating between belittling any who disagree with him and accentuating any actual points he may have beyond thier original context or out of proportion with thier actual impact.

As Yamo pointed out, going onto a board dedicated to a particular topic only to bad mouth it, "play devils advocate", or detract from it is classic troll behavior.

Indeed it is an this portrayal is fascinating, but inaccurate.

As i tried to point out with nightshade when he made specific examples, all you have to do is look to THIS THREAD and see this characterization is not what happened here.

Did i jump in this thread and start bashing heor or DND? Nope. My first post was solely about the Gms role in defining his world. i did not mention DND. i did not bash HERO.

When did i start talking about DND? After someone else started making claims about the system that I found to be inaccurate.

Maybe its some other thread that Shrike is so beefed about? Hard to say because all we get is rambling non-sprcifics and name calling.

Its really not that much worth responding to, except that at the end of a large thread there is the risk that some people might read it and think it a summary and not a fiction.


Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Its similar to a a person of 1 religion going into a church of a different religion to point out all the reasons why thier religion isnt as good as his, from his perspective. Its tactless, rude, and irritating.

Contrast this to going to another church, conversing with them calmly about their religion andonly mentioning yours when someone there MISCHARACTERIZES it.

Thats what happened in this thread. Shrike seems to have missed that.

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Please stop feeding tesuji; let him spin his wheels and eventually when he realizes that nobody cares he'll lose interest and leave. Thanx!


yes, apparently you have the time to zip into threads just to do the "tesuji is bad dont answer his posts" and name calling bit. I gotta say, that seems much ruder behavior. I must admit though, i have never had a stalker before following me around to try and keep people from talking to me before, so it is a unique experience.

However, as an aside, i can understand why Shrike's description seems so incredulous given the actual posts into the thread... if i am truely on his ignore list, then he did not see my messages and posts and is arguing perhaps only from the snippetted quotes from other people's responses... so it may well be he does not even know enough of what was posted to know what i did say.

So it may not be self-delusion, only self-imposed ignorance that misgiudes his posts.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

I am also the only person who has stated that you have had some good points.

Are you sure you have read the whole thread?

From page 1, before you chimed in iirc...

Originally posted by Captain Obvious
Good points, Tesuji.


and also from page 1...


Originally posted by Citizen Keen
While tesuji has solid points,
-cK

I dont know whether this is just another example of your tendency for innacuracy or simply a case of trying to use hyperbole to bolster your case. You tell me.


Originally posted by Nightshade

However, you have since gone completely off the topic (admittedly with help) and have bashed HERO in every possible way.

This is, even if simply taken as hyperbole, simply not true.

Originally posted by Nightshade

That is simply rude. The reason isn't because we are rabid fans of HERO and can't stand criticism. It's simply because these are the HERO boards and you have attempted to slam everyone who even attempts to defend the system.

Sigh.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I will also point out that I have read all of the thread, and really, what does your initial post have to do with what I was talking about?

Well, you posted as examples of rude behavior, which by implication i took to mean examples of my being rude in context, that involved people chiming in to answer questions about HERo with DND.

I felt the example that i asnwered the initial question with no reference to DND or using another game system to be precisely on point, disproving your example as an example of what happened here.

I felt the second example, of my only bringing up DND after someone else made inaccurate claims about DND as also disproving your points relevence to what has been going on here.



Originally posted by Nightshade

You are being rude. You are being insulting. You are being a poor guest on these boards put up by a company to promote their products.

Again, i disagree with your characterizations. As i did just a few posts ago with your answer with DND examples, I do not believe the facts support your characterizations. They seem grossly hyperbolic even when not simply factually inaccurate.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Just because someone insults D&D on the HERO boards does not give you the right to insult, annoy, and belittle people as you have done.

Interestingly, the vast majority of my comments were about the system.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Many people have posted rebuttles to your claims. If you had a good point, I have stated so. If I had a good point, you have either ignored it or attempted to wave it away as a nuance or triviality.

If i wanted to start discussing ignoring points, i would bring up your shifting subjects when an inaccuracy is found in your arguments. How many times did i have to correct your mischaracterization of DND rules? Where is your response to the "answer with dnd" argument you made corrected by my actually showing you the posts?

Let me ask some very direct questions (by the way, the "Nightshade is the even level headed one schtick" is goin good.)

1. Is your recent "answering hero Q with DND answers" post an accurate example or characterization of how i answered the original posters queation or did i in fact answer him without BASHING HERO or PUSHING DND?

2. is it accurate to say that i only started up with DND on this thread after a specific claim about DND was made by another poster?



Originally posted by Nightshade

I also find it difficult to believe that it is THAT much more difficult. It really doesn't take me much longer to make a Fantasy HERO character than a 3rd ed. D&D character on paper without the programs. I understand that this is/can be a hang up, but with a calculator, I really just don't see it.

So that would put you not in the camp who believe that Sidekick would be a good product needed to help HERO grow.

Personally, i agree with Mr long and the others. i think it would be a great thing. Now that he has placated the hardcore HEROmaniacs with 5e, another attempot at what fuzion tried to do, streamlined system easier for newcomers, is a great idea IMO.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Maybe it is because I have done so many. I think you may be right on that point.

As i have stated AND AGREED WITH YOU ON... for a group comprised of HERO veterans, HERo does fine in the complexity issue. matter of fact, people like Yamo in fact have even gone on record against the "anti-newbie" learning curve as a bad thing... in response to a post about the imbalances between capabilities of a novice build vs a veteran build i believe his response was akin to "the day i dont get more out of hero by putting more in is a bad day."

Me, since i prefer to bring new players into each campaign, i do not want the "time in" for vetereans making them get "more powerful characters" simply because they know how to milk the system more. I prefer, apparently unlike yamo, to bring the newbie is at full capability and not at a character disadvantage.

A less weighty system allows me to do that more.

Originally posted by Nightshade

However, the correlary to this is that it is the GM who should do this, not the system. I have argued the point from the beginning of this discussion that it is easier to do this with HERO than D&D. Not that it isn't possible to do this in D&D, just that it isn't as simple to do.

And my counter point is that it IS simpler to do. More to the point, the amount of work involved really depends much more on how similar it is to the setting within the system already.

Note that even while HERO professes to not have a setting, it really does have much of one ingrained in. its setting is one where water breathing SHOULD BE half as useful as clinging (which makes an assessment of how often water issues and climbing issues occur and their importance) and where a 4d6 blast over a 4m radius is on par with an 8d6 blast against a single target (which makes an assessment of how often groups are adversaries, how high the defenses are and how wide open the engagements are) and that flight is on par with running in effectiveness (even in a game without knockback)and that stun only is as effective as does stun and body for a shockbolt or a club and so on and so on and so on.

As i have stated before...

If the world you envision is more similar to how hero does things, so that these core setting elements ingrained within the system do not have to be addressed and evaluated and changed... then rendering that world in HERo will likely be easier than doing so in DND.

The reverse is also true... if it is closer to DND than hero, then it will be easier to do there. Frankly, creating a class in DND takes less time for me than creating a character in hero... and i am a veteran of hero.

For games more or less in the middle, the level of experience with either system will likely be the determining element.

This is where i come down with my basic premise... that HERO is NOT more customizable or less work to do a custom setting in than DND (or more precisely D20.)


Originally posted by Nightshade

Now, if someone did that to you, would you get upset?

Uhh i have endured far worse in this thread. The parts which get me upset are when people do two specific things...

1. try and turn the discussion about why i should not be posting here at all.
2. When people simply make inaccurate statements or misleading examples about what has been said.

Most often, it seems like those are just an attempt to stop the disucssion not to further it.

i might admit tho, shrike's new tact of actively going round and simply telling people to stop talking to me and calling me names is one i still haven't digested yet.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I'll admit that some have, and I will say that I don't agree with some of the responses from them, but you have to admit, some of the venom unleashed was from your side of the fence.

Your nightshade-the-middle-man angle would sound more convincing if it were not the fact that even when you apparently see rude behavior from both sides of the discussion you chose only one side to post commentary against their rudeness...

if somewhere in between his name calling rants, you had posted a message to AnotherSkip telling him his rude posts should not be made here, i might be buying into this Nightshade easy going schtick.

Actions speak louder than words, Nightshade.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Actually, now that I say that, I'll also take some of the responsibility for that. I will admit that sometimes I did not explain myself properly, did not have a full grasp of some of the rules, and put up some very bad examples. That lowered the quality of the discussion and can be very annoying. For that, I appologize.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Nightshade

1) I believe that a class based system is too constrictive for the character development, even the vastly improved system used in D&D.

I believe, for worlds significantly removed from worlds the players are very familiar with, class based system, specifically loose class based systems, are immensely valuable tools to show the players much of what people in the world are like. I admit that in the hands of a GM who decided to be too constrictive, they are a means of it, but assert that he can be just as contrictive with the approval stage in a
points-then-approve system such as hero. Classes are one way he can say no, but he can do so in many other ways.

Originally posted by Nightshade

2) I believe that the classes in the PHB (but not in the DMG or any of the various supplemental books) are an inherent part of the "official" d20 fantasy game called D&D. Therefore, it is fair to discuss them as part of the D&D system, but not part of the d20 system. My interpretation is that it is the prestige classes that are setting specific and the basic classes are genre specific.

i think you and i are getting a different take on this. I will agree completely that DND is the classes but the fact is that DND is greyhawk. The official setting is greyhawk and the DND book includes that. All that being true, the question of which classes are allowed for a custom game is the GMs. he is not obligated by the rules to allow sorcerers or paladins or any of them.

Originally posted by Nightshade

3) I believe that in some circumstances, HERO is a better fantasy system than D&D because it is more easility customized to fit your game than D&D.

I think the determinign elements there are the similarity of the cutom world to the two systems and the experience the user has with the system, not an ingrained element of the system themselves.

Once you add "players" into the mix, i think the issue of newbies vs veterans shifts the balance more heavily towards D20 if newbies are involved.


Originally posted by Nightshade

4) I believe that HERO's skill resolution system is better than D&D, as it is less likely that in an opposed skill vs. skill contest that a low skilled character to beat a much more skilled character.

That is one element of the skill resolution system. Since i rarely see toddlers arm wrestling with strongmen come up as an element of my stories, I really cannot see that as as serious an issue as you seem to have with it. I see "circumstantial modifiers" which adjust the Dc play into practically every scenario i have ever run... and as such i find the d20 "i know what a +1 modifier will do... 1 more chance in 20" vs hero's "i don't know what a +1 modifier will do... is it 10 chances in 216 or is it 27 chances in 216?" to be much preferable. With take-10 and even take-20, d20 deals with the more extreme randomness quite well IMO.

Originally posted by Nightshade

5) I believe that HERO has a better character development system as the players have a more uniform way to increase and obtain skills with experience than in D&D.

through classes the Gm allows the characters to progress in a reasonable way, showing the players what comes first and a scope for how things are learned... you don't get ti fireballs without learning easier magics.

For this to happen in HERO, the Gm has to provide this information to the players.

Last HERO game i was in i saw a photographer, the session after we had picked up a enemy computer, spend his 3xp to gain computers skill which he had not had before. he went from little skill, maybe a everyman roll, to 13- in the course of a "in game weekend" by picking up, and i mean this literally was how it was descirbed, "the yellow computers for dummies nook" and was off and making 13- die rolls for computer stuff.

That violated no HERO rule.

So, you must forgive me when i say, when someone talks about how much better the adnavcement and experience and gaining abilities is in hero, i often don't get that. it seems much more reasonable to scale things in order of acquisition so that prerequisites occur before more advanced abilities.

HERO does not do that. A GM might decide to add that for his game, but HERo does not do that for him.

Classed system do that.

Originally posted by Nightshade

6) I believe that HERO does have more math and a steeper learning curve than D&D, but that it is not something that is particularly difficult to overcome, given the opportunity.

i find, as do other proponents of sidekick I think, that the system's learning curve does get in the way of new players being attracted to it. i know if i told my barbarian player, who took up roleplaying after she turned 50, that the HERO5 manual plus the megasized fantasy hero manual were the books needed for the play and chargen, she would have smiled and told me no. When i was able to give her the PHB and thats quite literally all she used to build her character... that worked.

i think sidekick will go a long way towards bringing new players to HERO.

Originally posted by Nightshade

7) I believe that D&D is a good system for those fantasy worlds that D&D is good at, such as high magic, high fantasy games.

I agree. As stated earlier, i actually recommend D20 modern for low magic worlds. Truth be told, its even looser class system is IMO superior to DND's greyahwk class system. When i run another fantasy game using d20, i will likely as not utilize a lot of the d20 modern class structure by adding in the "stat hero" classes as more generics and removing any multiclass penalties in favor of prerequisites for 'advanced classes.

[ShinDangaioh]

(I've only read the first post, so if it has diverged from that. I wouldn't know)

When Spelljammer came out, the classes weren't logical anymore for that setting. Sooo, I dug into the DMG and created my own classes that would feel right. The Jammnav class. d6 HD, spell power up to level 5 spells, an assortment of spells from both Cleric and Mage lists, the ability to shrug off the debilitating effects of a spelljamming helm. He filled a niche that was needed.

I miss that ability from 2nd ed that should have been in D20.
The ability to create your own character classes. I can't bring that character over to D20.

Maybe BESM D20 will have that ability restored.

At any rate, run an AD&D 2nd ed game and create a bunch of odd character classes to show them that things don't have to be the way the books say. After a few of those games, show them Hero and point out that what you had done with those odd classes, can be done in even greater degree with Hero

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by ShinDangaioh
(I've only read the first post, so if it has diverged from that. I wouldn't know)



Good call.

[Nightshade]

I won't post any response to the stuff that you stated before the points that I said that I'd discuss, although I will say that insults, from any side, is rude.

I would also state that I don't agree with Killer Shrike as to feeding tesuji is feeding a troll. Aside from the insults, I think tesuji is trying to make his point. If he simply wouldn't be so, shall we say, aggressive about it, specifically the name calling and whatnot (however, I don't think he started it), I think that this would be a very good discussion. If you look at the last part of his last post, he was very cordial, and again had some very legitimate points. I am of the opinion that if more people did this, it would be a more pleasant forum.

Now, on to the (hopefully only) discussion:

tesuji wrote:

"I believe, for worlds significantly removed from worlds the players are very familiar with, class based system, specifically loose class based systems, are immensely valuable tools to show the players much of what people in the world are like. I admit that in the hands of a GM who decided to be too constrictive, they are a means of it, but assert that he can be just as contrictive with the approval stage in a
points-then-approve system such as hero. Classes are one way he can say no, but he can do so in many other ways."

I'm still not getting this quote thing down. Anyway, I disagree. My world is much closer to Earth than Greyhawk, as I don't have very much magic, and D&D worked very poorly for it, because of that fact.

I will agree that the purpose of classes is to do exactly what you say. And, I also agree that there are circumstances where the GM must say no. My issue is that it is the GM's perrogative, not the systems'. I think that D&D takes this somewhat away from the GM.

tesuji wrote:

"i think you and i are getting a different take on this. I will agree completely that DND is the classes but the fact is that DND is greyhawk. The official setting is greyhawk and the DND book includes that. All that being true, the question of which classes are allowed for a custom game is the GMs. he is not obligated by the rules to allow sorcerers or paladins or any of them. "

I agree with you there. There is nothing that states that I have to use sorceror or paladin, or can't modify them. However, when I changed or deleted pretty much every class, my prospective players had problems. It simply wasn't D&D to them.

I understand that the base setting is Greyhawk. However, most of the setting books released for d20 fantasy use at the minimum the base classes, with maybe a few tweaks, deletions, and add-ons. All of the ones released that I have seen (granted not that many) have wholesale changed them the way I had to. Now, if they are going to, great. I just haven't seen them, and I think that is for a reason.

tesuji wrote:

"I think the determinign elements there are the similarity of the cutom world to the two systems and the experience the user has with the system, not an ingrained element of the system themselves.

Once you add "players" into the mix, i think the issue of newbies vs veterans shifts the balance more heavily towards D20 if newbies are involved."

I agree with you there. D&D is definately a more new player friendly game, especially if you have never roleplayed before. I will also agree with you that as the players become more experienced, that the shift is more towards more complicated, freeform systems like what HERO has. Okay, that isn't really what you said, but it could be inferred from your post. That has been my experience, however.

tesuji wrote:

"That is one element of the skill resolution system. Since i rarely see toddlers arm wrestling with strongmen come up as an element of my stories, I really cannot see that as as serious an issue as you seem to have with it. I see "circumstantial modifiers" which adjust the Dc play into practically every scenario i have ever run... and as such i find the d20 "i know what a +1 modifier will do... 1 more chance in 20" vs hero's "i don't know what a +1 modifier will do... is it 10 chances in 216 or is it 27 chances in 216?" to be much preferable. With take-10 and even take-20, d20 deals with the more extreme randomness quite well IMO. "

The 3 STR vs. 18 STR example holds true for any skill. Let me give you an actual in-game example. I had a wizard in my game with a STR of 7. He got into some trouble with the town bully who had a STR of 15. He got wrestled to the ground and restrained. Basically, he couldn't cast any spells. The party was a couple rounds away, but were running to help. Now, the wizard tried to get out of the bruiser's hold, and whooped the guy good on the roll. After looking at the statistics of it, he actually didn't have a bad shot at doing it, either.

I have also had archery contests and concealment vs. search checks. Anytime it is skill vs. skill, the player with the lower skill simply doesn't have that bad of a chance to succeed. In my experience, this doesn't occur as often in HERO as D&D. I don't mind it happening, but I don't like the frequency of it happening.

I don't think that I have had anyone ever complain about the +1 to skill is better for him than me due to my higher skill. Personally, I prefer to have a diminishing returns system, where getting a +1 to a skill is not as good the better you get. It feels more real to me that way. However, I much prefer the linear system D&D has to the system White Wolf and some others use, where not only does getting another die to your roll not help as much, you had to pay more for it (a lot more in many cases).

tesuji said:

"through classes the Gm allows the characters to progress in a reasonable way, showing the players what comes first and a scope for how things are learned... you don't get ti fireballs without learning easier magics.

For this to happen in HERO, the Gm has to provide this information to the players.

Last HERO game i was in i saw a photographer, the session after we had picked up a enemy computer, spend his 3xp to gain computers skill which he had not had before. he went from little skill, maybe a everyman roll, to 13- in the course of a "in game weekend" by picking up, and i mean this literally was how it was descirbed, "the yellow computers for dummies nook" and was off and making 13- die rolls for computer stuff.

That violated no HERO rule.

So, you must forgive me when i say, when someone talks about how much better the adnavcement and experience and gaining abilities is in hero, i often don't get that. it seems much more reasonable to scale things in order of acquisition so that prerequisites occur before more advanced abilities.

HERO does not do that. A GM might decide to add that for his game, but HERo does not do that for him.

Classed system do that."

They only do that for the powers and abilities specifically of the class. They don't do that for the skills, necessarily. For example, where in d20 does it state that when you gain your level you can't put all of the skill points into one skill that was previously untrained?

As to the example you gave, as GM I would rule that a "for dummies" book may not qualify for the full roll, especially over a weekend. You have to have time to practice a skill (any skill) before you get the full skill.

As to the getting fireball without easier magic in D&D, that may be the case if you assume that all magic has the same philosophy. I never liked that idea, personally, but it is inherent to D&D (wizards all cast the same spell the same way). There is no rule that states, however, that you need to have anything even remotely fire related to get fireball in D&D. You could have all enchantment, necromancy, and abjuration spells and still get fireball without restriction (unless you were a specialist and picked that one as a forbidden school).

I will agree that D&D does a very good job of doing what you are talking about with feats, especially. The magic has a different philosophy than I would like on my world. I do classify my spells in terms of common special effect/common style, so I have an admitted prejudice there. HERO's spell college system did attempt to rectify what you are talking about, but IMO did it poorly. We'll see how they do it with the new addition.

tesuji wrote:

"i find, as do other proponents of sidekick I think, that the system's learning curve does get in the way of new players being attracted to it. i know if i told my barbarian player, who took up roleplaying after she turned 50, that the HERO5 manual plus the megasized fantasy hero manual were the books needed for the play and chargen, she would have smiled and told me no. When i was able to give her the PHB and thats quite literally all she used to build her character... that worked.

i think sidekick will go a long way towards bringing new players to HERO. "

I have already agreed that D&D is a much better system for people who have never roleplayed before. I don't understand why sidekick will help get people into the game. I know that I haven't read anything about what the Sidekick book will do, but I will say that the HERO system Grimoire will help me with my fanasy game MUCH more, as it eliminates a lot of the math associated with the spells. It makes it easier to play a wizard when you can just look the spell up and write it on your sheet. I'll have to look up what the sidekick book idea is, so I can't really comment as to your point there.

tesuji wrote:

"I agree. As stated earlier, i actually recommend D20 modern for low magic worlds. Truth be told, its even looser class system is IMO superior to DND's greyahwk class system. When i run another fantasy game using d20, i will likely as not utilize a lot of the d20 modern class structure by adding in the "stat hero" classes as more generics and removing any multiclass penalties in favor of prerequisites for 'advanced classes."

I never got d20 modern, as I already had a system that I liked. How are you planning on doing magic with that? Do they have anything for that, our do you have to create the spell progression, etc?

Anyway, like I said, I can't comment as to how well d20 modern will handle low magic worlds, as I don't own the product. I will say that I wouldn't use D&D, for reasons I have listed previously.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

I'm still not getting this quote thing down. Anyway, I disagree. My world is much closer to Earth than Greyhawk, as I don't have very much magic, and D&D worked very poorly for it, because of that fact.

Then you are not disagreeing with me at all. i will state it more clearly...

classes are more useful the FARTHER the play world is from the world the players themselves know. So, a game more like earth with low magic would be less served by classes because the primary function of classes, to help define the world's inhabitants and give the players a better foundation, is less of a challenge.

Honestly, i continually recommend D20 modern for a low magic world, even a dantasy one. It starts with the premise of less magic and less fantastic built in.

The DND setting is definitely intended for HIGH MAGIC.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I will agree that the purpose of classes is to do exactly what you say. And, I also agree that there are circumstances where the GM must say no. My issue is that it is the GM's perrogative, not the systems'. I think that D&D takes this somewhat away from the GM.

I think DND includes a high magic setting and bases its settings balance parameters, which need to be defined for a campaign ON THAT SETTING. This is, IMO, a great benefit to those wishing to run high magic games. It wont help those running substantially different games, but then, it doesn't hurt them either, IMO.

I will add one thing... and i have seen this in print from the designers, and Collins seems the most egregious... for the DND setting there was for 3e and still is for 3.5e a goal of reducing the GMs role... that they want to provide so many benchmarks and cross references to keep many decisions from being what they tend to describe as "GM whim" by ironing the mechanics down. Monte Cook described it as doing what they could to remove the Gm from the picture, or similkar language.

I UNDERSTAND this notion from the perspective of a game that is intended to reach inexperienced GMs as well as new ones, a sort of "training wheels" built in that later on the experienced Gm can remove to suit his purpose. I do not like it myself, as it serves me little purpose, and am as such looking very much forward to Monte's Arcana PHB which is specifically targetted to experienced GMs and has a much less "safeties on" mindset in its design.

HERO5, to me, is a game definitely designed for experienced GMs.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I agree with you there. There is nothing that states that I have to use sorceror or paladin, or can't modify them. However, when I changed or deleted pretty much every class, my prospective players had problems. It simply wasn't D&D to them.

This sounds to me like a miscommuniocation between you and the players. They wanted to play more traditional DND and you wanted to do something else. Thats just as bad as a MnM Gm who wants to run daredevil but has four players who build iron men clones impervious to bullets and clubs.

I do not see that as anything, fault or favor, to the systems.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I understand that the base setting is Greyhawk. However, most of the setting books released for d20 fantasy use at the minimum the base classes, with maybe a few tweaks, deletions, and add-ons. All of the ones released that I have seen (granted not that many) have wholesale changed them the way I had to. Now, if they are going to, great. I just haven't seen them, and I think that is for a reason.

I dont buy a lot of third party DND stuff. WOTC supports the same stuff they publish. I recall there being a third party one that used a universe with gunpower and guns and cannons and such. I think Malhavoc did one heavily psionic.

I know monte Cook is about to release, at printers now, Arcana Unearthed, a completely new PHB with no core classes from the PHb and a different magic system and the like. i ANXIOUSLY await this.

Why hasn't there been more? Probably because the third party guys saw similar results to you... that the further away from the DND mold they went, the more restricted their audience became. They sell to the market... and its easier to make PrCs to provide your norm than it is to say "we dont use fighters" so if you want to drop this adventure into your campaign you cannot." The closer they stay to the core, the more potential buyers they get.

That is however, speculation, but since it simply takes your experience and projects it to a larger stage, it makes some sense.

Besides, quite frankly, many of the core classes such as fighter and rouge and barbarian serve fairly well across many different fantasy flavors. its their magic system guys that are fairly restricted in their application...especially the wizard and clerics.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I agree with you there. D&D is definately a more new player friendly game, especially if you have never roleplayed before. I will also agree with you that as the players become more experienced, that the shift is more towards more complicated, freeform systems like what HERO has. Okay, that isn't really what you said, but it could be inferred from your post. That has been my experience, however.

I will add a third stage...

Stage 1: learn to play quick and easy game system
Stage 2: Desire for and move to much more complex and detailed system.
Stage 3: In some cases, not all, move back to lower detailed system (not necessarily the ones you began with) for more system light don't-get-in-the-way gaming.

i went to stage 3.

In similar vein... i once played chess a lot. Then i got into wargames and got really good at Star Fleet Battles the -game-that-needs-its-own-weight-belt-to-allow-the-rules-to-be-carried. Later on, when i got tired of SFB being more about rules-ics than tactics, i came to find GO, a game whose rules can be boiled down to about 8 rules and for whom the play is simple but the game more complex than any other i have seen.

In my experience, the values i believed i gained from the really huge honking games was an illusion. The success or failure of the games did not hinge on and were not really affected by the game having 50 pages of rules or 400 pages of rules or whether it used simple add/subtract or whether a falshlight was a mathproject. The success or fail depended fundamentally on two things... did i communicate well with the players at the beginning and did i live up to and show them in play what i promised them.

To meet those goals, a lightweight clear system works better and doesn't need as much math.

The downsides of the honking heavy system, 500 pages plus learning curve, are big if, like me, you want to bring new players to the table for each campaign.

Nowadays if i want to bring new players to a board game of space combat, i whip out BFG or Silent Death... both of who i can have you up and PLAYING in 15 minutes.

If i want to bring someone new to the table for fantasy rpg or supers, i gravitate to MnM or DND, or soon, perhaps, Arcana from monte or the "hungry magic" setting i am working on using DND or D20 Modern (which would also make for a good XFiles/Buffy etc...)


Originally posted by Nightshade

The 3 STR vs. 18 STR example holds true for any skill. Let me give you an actual in-game example. I had a wizard in my game with a STR of 7. He got into some trouble with the town bully who had a STR of 15. He got wrestled to the ground and restrained. Basically, he couldn't cast any spells. The party was a couple rounds away, but were running to help. Now, the wizard tried to get out of the bruiser's hold, and whooped the guy good on the roll. After looking at the statistics of it, he actually didn't have a bad shot at doing it, either.

A lot of that will of course also vary with level. The "skill" primary for this task is BAB.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I have also had archery contests and concealment vs. search checks. Anytime it is skill vs. skill, the player with the lower skill simply doesn't have that bad of a chance to succeed. In my experience, this doesn't occur as often in HERO as D&D. I don't mind it happening, but I don't like the frequency of it happening.

I get that. You like the skill vs skill probabilties better when skill ranks play more of a roll than in DND. i get that.

However, that is one element of the skill resolution system. I find the "+1 means different things" to be a bigger annoyance as circumstantial modifiers occur in practically every scenario for me. Thus i prefer a flatter model.

My simplest suggestion would be to replace d20 with a d10+5 for the skill checks you want to be flatter. That way you get less broad a range of results and keep the knowing what a +1 represents aspect.


Originally posted by Nightshade

I don't think that I have had anyone ever complain about the +1 to skill is better for him than me due to my higher skill. Personally, I prefer to have a diminishing returns system, where getting a +1 to a skill is not as good the better you get. It feels more real to me that way.

Therein lies your problem... its not that the penalty/gain is less important the better you are... it varies... sometimes the +1 means less for the less skilled guy, sometimes it means less for the better skilled guy... it all comes down to where in the bell curve your base chance falls. If it was straightforward, one dimensional as you say, where the weaker you are the worst penalties were and the better bonuses were, that would make sense.


Originally posted by Nightshade

However, I much prefer the linear system D&D has to the system White Wolf and some others use, where not only does getting another die to your roll not help as much, you had to pay more for it (a lot more in many cases).

While i cannot speak to modern WW systems, I can sayy that their first few editions of V suffered from one basic problem... it seemed like none of them could count to save their life and they did not care. great game... as long as you did not let their system get in the way.

Originally posted by Nightshade

HERO does not do that. A GM might decide to add that for his game, but HERo does not do that for him.

Thats because HERO is a system, not a game. I like to play games. (In truth though, behind its scenes, there is a setting and in part a game behind even HERO5.)

Originally posted by Nightshade

They only do that for the powers and abilities specifically of the class. They don't do that for the skills, necessarily. For example, where in d20 does it state that when you gain your level you can't put all of the skill points into one skill that was previously untrained?

It doesn't except that the skill ranks are limited in rank determined by level..So upon achieveing second level, a normal rogue cannot spend 8 ranks on bluff... he is still limited to 5. If he goes outside his class skills, he is limited to 2 net skill ranks costing 5 points.

This prevents or limits the amount of skills you can achieve at once, particularly at low levels. In fact though, usually it is the skill points gained that limits you. Only a small portion of the "gain a level" benefits can be skills. If you equate a DND level with say 30 Xp in hero, the best i can get in DND is maybe putting 10 points or so in skills with the rest running into"buying" BAB, class features hit dice and the like... whereas in HERO i can in theory spend all the points on skills.

DND has a lot more built in restrictions on abusive advancements, by dint of grouping things into classes.


Originally posted by Nightshade

As to the example you gave, as GM I would rule that a "for dummies" book may not qualify for the full roll, especially over a weekend. You have to have time to practice a skill (any skill) before you get the full skill.

Then you have effectively written in that the player cannot 1. spend all his points on skills and use them... and establioshed a growth process by which you start at lower levels and work your way up...

thats what the class system did too.

Originally posted by Nightshade

As to the getting fireball without easier magic in D&D, that may be the case if you assume that all magic has the same philosophy. I never liked that idea, personally, but it is inherent to D&D (wizards all cast the same spell the same way). There is no rule that states, however, that you need to have anything even remotely fire related to get fireball in D&D. You could have all enchantment, necromancy, and abjuration spells and still get fireball without restriction (unless you were a specialist and picked that one as a forbidden school).

I agree... in DND it is more about learning to control more powerful magics in a general sense than it is working through specific spell trees. I also agree the any spell approach is not one i prefer... the learning fireball right off.

My bet is that in hero, most of the time, and this is from my experience, the Gm will not allow, will write into his world, the similar notion of not having just one spell with no other magic skill. he is effectively working in a leveled magic system at various degrees of strictness.


Originally posted by Nightshade

I will agree that D&D does a very good job of doing what you are talking about with feats, especially. The magic has a different philosophy than I would like on my world. I do classify my spells in terms of common special effect/common style, so I have an admitted prejudice there. HERO's spell college system did attempt to rectify what you are talking about, but IMO did it poorly. We'll see how they do it with the new addition.

I was anxiously awaiting Fh back in 4th and like you felt it worked poorly. Thats been one of my ongoing nagging issues with HERo and genres other than supers. FH felt like supers with swords. Western hero, cyber hero, horror hero etc all felt like a thin veneer of genre FITTED INTO a HERO supers genre. STAR HERO 3rd, which i dimly recall, was the last HERO supplement that came close to feeling like a genre and not a HERO expansion for supers to me.

HERo is actually the game that drove me away from GENERIC systems...

Originally posted by Nightshade

I never got d20 modern, as I already had a system that I liked. How are you planning on doing magic with that? Do they have anything for that, our do you have to create the spell progression, etc?

D20 modern includes magic as an option. Basically they provide details for three different settings in their core rulebook... a buffy ripoff, a urban arcana low magic hidden from normals, and a psi game (they include psionics too.) The urban arcana sourcebook provides even more.

I just deleted a lengthy explanation...
Here is the link to the d20 modern SRD...you can read the rules online. It is so cool to have the core books online so you can show them...

http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=msrd


Originally posted by Nightshade

Anyway, like I said, I can't comment as to how well d20 modern will handle low magic worlds, as I don't own the product. I will say that I wouldn't use D&D, for reasons I have listed previously.
Nightshade

In short, it presents a lower power and shorter list of spells and delays the magic classes with prerequisited until even starting until say 5th level of character or so. So, for example, a magus might well only get first level spells as a sixth level character and will not get topped out with 5th level spells until 14th or so.

Ab occultist class is an example of lower powered magic classes, who never develops spell casting but instead develops the ability to use items like scrolls and IIRC gets lots of arcane knowledge skills.

[Nightshade]

I agree with almost everything you said. Just a couple of things:

The only time that characters are limited to how many skills that they put into a single skill to go from unskilled to very skilled is at low levels. I was in a D&D game once where the Rogue suddenly decided that he needed to be able to sneak, as we were in a scenerio where that was going to be important. He just got to 7th or 8th level and put all of his points into it, making him pretty good in just one level.

My point is this: I think that this situation is possible in any system, be it D&D, HERO, or any others. One advance that I'll give d20 over previous editions is that there is an advancement to the skills AT ALL. In 2nd ed, you put in a single skill point into swim, and you were an olympic quality swimmer. Don't have that point in it and you could only dog paddle. There was no gradient to make you better. It was much better done this time.

My other point is that I would rather have my players decide where to put their experience than the system. If they don't want to increase their body, they don't have to. More skills over more spells for wizards, fine. I like that. But that is an opinion that can't be argued for or against. If you don't like that, and you find it too easily abused, then you should try something else.

In terms of magic, I actually have the following problem with D&D wizards:

The start off complete wimps, barely able to passably help the party. They get more powerful, but feels like they do it slower than the other classes. Suddenly, they improve by leaps and bounds as they get access to the more powerful spells.

I found this trend as I went through my PBeM phase: Lower level games (say 7th and below) had a low frequency of wizards. High level games (15th and above) had a very high frequency of wizards. I finally figured out that it was because wizards get more powerful following an expontial curve. They start off slow, but then get more powerful per level. The other classes go up pretty linearly. This was for 2nd ed. The same somewhat holds true for 3rd, but it didn't look nearly as bad as before.

Personally, I like being able to improve your character as you see fit. If you want your character to be more magically fit, and don't want to improve your statistics, other skills, whatever, then I want you to be able to do that. If you want to become more buff, or a better marksman, or more diplomatic, I think that should be the player's prerogative. You have more freedom now in d20 D&D than before, but there are still some times when some people wish that they could have fewer skills and more hit points.

Nightshade

[Killer Shrike]

Nightshade I would also state that I don't agree with Killer Shrike as to feeding tesuji is feeding a troll. Aside from the insults, I think tesuji is trying to make his point. If he simply wouldn't be so, shall we say, aggressive about it, specifically the name calling and whatnot (however, I don't think he started it), I think that this would be a very good discussion. If you look at the last part of his last post, he was very cordial, and again had some very legitimate points. I am of the opinion that if more people did this, it would be a more pleasant forum.

Its not this particular thread or any 1 other particular thread that has lead to me to consider tesuji a troll; its the aggregate of many threads wherein he simply bashes the HERO System in favor of a system he prefers. Over time I noticed a trend in his posts which eventually lead me to decide to add him to my ignore list. Ive seen too many threads go off track on back and forth argumentative tangents in response to posts that he has made. Its not personal; I just prefer not to perpetuate the disruption by responding to him.

[Nightshade]

I must admit that I don't know much about what anyone does on most of the other forums. I am pretty new here, and the forums are pretty active, so I never get to read everything.

I would say that tesuji's last post had only a couple things that I would call inflamatory, and not nearly so bad as before. I would say that I am still confused as to why someone who likes D&D so much is on a Fantasy HERO forum, but hey, that's his prerogative.

I think that some of our forums do get way out of line due to people getting riled about something someone posted and feeding into the negativity created. There were lots of insults posted on both sides, you have to admit.

The annoying thing about opinions is that they cannot be proven, but people will try anyway. It is my opinion that HERO is a (far) better fantasy system than d20. I can't realistically prove it, as that is an opinion.

I can say that HERO has more flexibility in the character development area, as you can choose to focus on skills of any type, stats at any time, and not have to develop things that you don't want to develop, which is impossible to do in D&D (you cannot, for example, not gain any hit points at a level and get more skills instead). Whether that is a good thing or not is, again, a matter of opinion.

If people wouldn't get so personal about it, perhaps we could get a discussion, not a big screaming match like we had before.

I do understand, however, if you have seen someone post many times things like where the argument went before, and always involving the same person, why you would ignore their posts. Like I said, it is important to realize that these are the HERO forums, and we really should be discussing things related to HERO, and trying to keep it positive to HERO. We aren't paying anything to be here, so we should be respectful of that fact.

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Nightshade

The only time that characters are limited to how many skills that they put into a single skill to go from unskilled to very skilled is at low levels. I was in a D&D game once where the Rogue suddenly decided that he needed to be able to sneak, as we were in a scenerio where that was going to be important. He just got to 7th or 8th level and put all of his points into it, making him pretty good in just one level.

Which is still less than if he had been able to put his BAB, reflex save, hit dice and so forth all into a hopper and dumped all their value into the skill.

The skills per level is only a part of his "experience" and the class progression the Gm viewed as acceptable for his game does not allow the character to by default dump all of it into skills or even skill. That is IMO a step in the direction of "reasonable advancement." It wont be the whole journey in all cases, but it is a little help and a nudge in that direction.

Originally posted by Nightshade

My point is this: I think that this situation is possible in any system, be it D&D, HERO, or any others. One advance that I'll give d20 over previous editions is that there is an advancement to the skills AT ALL. In 2nd ed, you put in a single skill point into swim, and you were an olympic quality swimmer. Don't have that point in it and you could only dog paddle. There was no gradient to make you better. It was much better done this time.

I avoided the entire 2e debacle for the most part.

Originally posted by Nightshade

My other point is that I would rather have my players decide where to put their experience than the system.

The class the gm allows is making some of that determination. If he thinks its reasonable for a character to advance in nothing but skills, with no other knowledge or ability gained, he could include such a class in his game.

Most, IMO, wont make that choice. Most people do see people advancing in more than one narrow area over the course of an "adventure" in a typical fantasgy campaign. I personally would think it odd for a rogue to go out, trek on some sort of fantastic adventure, probably get into a fight or two, smoosh info from a village, pick a few locks and then come out of it wanting to say all he learned from the experience were some skills.

But, if that is apropos for your games, then a class that reflects this should be easy enough. Its what, three lines... "for each level of advancement in this class the character gains X skill ranks in the following skills and no other abilities."

Originally posted by Nightshade

If they don't want to increase their body, they don't have to. More skills over more spells for wizards, fine. I like that. But that is an opinion that can't be argued for or against. If you don't like that, and you find it too easily abused, then you should try something else.

I tend to agree, although i find the notion of adding such a "calls" relatively easy, though not somethin i would embrace.

Originally posted by Nightshade

The start off complete wimps, barely able to passably help the party. They get more powerful, but feels like they do it slower than the other classes. Suddenly, they improve by leaps and bounds as they get access to the more powerful spells.

With 3e, i have foudn that some of the low level weakness is gone... with bonus spells for int/cha and feats and good numbers of starting spells. I mean, the ability to in theory cast 4 sleep spells per day for a 1st level mage with 16 int is pretty more than weak. The ability to scribe scrolls at even thos low levels also helps after a little coin is in pocket. Depending on the speed of the campaign, a first level wiz may have a couple more scrolls to back him up.

By third level or defintely by fifth, i don't see any weakness problem with wizards and certainly not for sorcerers, which i play more frequently. I will wholeheartedly agree that in 1e, where your wiz started with one spell per day, this was a serious issue.

At high levels, the challenges are much more the balancing element for the mage spells. Lots of SR creatures are going to address some of that spell power vs melee power issue.

Originally posted by Nightshade

I found this trend as I went through my PBeM phase: Lower level games (say 7th and below) had a low frequency of wizards. High level games (15th and above) had a very high frequency of wizards. I finally figured out that it was because wizards get more powerful following an expontial curve. They start off slow, but then get more powerful per level. The other classes go up pretty linearly. This was for 2nd ed. The same somewhat holds true for 3rd, but it didn't look nearly as bad as before.

Here we are in some agreement... the problems you describe are much more previous editions issues than current issue ones.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Personally, I like being able to improve your character as you see fit. If you want your character to be more magically fit, and don't want to improve your statistics, other skills, whatever, then I want you to be able to do that. If you want to become more buff, or a better marksman, or more diplomatic, I think that should be the player's prerogative. You have more freedom now in d20 D&D than before, but there are still some times when some people wish that they could have fewer skills and more hit points.
Nightshade


Again, my only caveat we both already agree on... the addition of "within reason" after "as you see fit."

The thing classes do, and i prefer loose classes, is to define for your players what "within reason" means. I think this definition is very invaluable for the further your world goes into "unreasonable land" the further it is removed from real world the players know. As such, i think classes are great for things such as DND and other high magic high fanbtasy type settings which are wholly unlike our world and less useful for things like modern day.

If you take a look at the basic classes in D20 modern you will see very loose defined classes with a lot more flexibility than the DND ones.. which seems a good approach to making loose light classes for the setting you already know and the tighter classes such as advanced or prestige classes for the stuff you may not know as well or at all.

[tesuji]

This sounds very reasonable, though of course i disagree with his conclusion.

In particular, the last sentence seems to be very reasonable.

" I just prefer not to perpetuate the disruption by responding to him."

Indeed, that sounds like reasonable attitude and response for someone you have decided is a troll.

Unfortunately, this easy-going-reasonableness and "its not personal" is somewhat brung into doubt by then expanding the scope of action to include hopping into threads to repeatedly discourage others from engaging in the discussion and tossing "troll" around as name calling for posts which apparently you do not even see?

That behavior makes it look entirely personal, a cause to go out and jump in, not just a decision to reasonably decide to ignore some posts or posters.

But i gotta admit, this posts did sound good, and if i had not read Shrike's other posts on this thread, i might have bought it myself.


Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Its not this particular thread or any 1 other particular thread that has lead to me to consider tesuji a troll; its the aggregate of many threads wherein he simply bashes the HERO System in favor of a system he prefers. Over time I noticed a trend in his posts which eventually lead me to decide to add him to my ignore list. Ive seen too many threads go off track on back and forth argumentative tangents in response to posts that he has made. Its not personal; I just prefer not to perpetuate the disruption by responding to him.

[AnotherSkip]

Actually there are still problems with 3E which you point out as advantages.

you arbitrarily suggest "making new classes"

Seems strange. Isn't everything we need in the main books?

however your efftorts at considering balance for them are very odd.

id say nonexistant.

Quite simply put here are no balancing factors to even suggest what you are suggesting. At least in Hero I have some idea of what certain abilities can do for a person. Also lets say you do this Skills for everything else. is it balanced at 20th as it is at 3rd?

And Monster CR's are problematic. Do you realise that hey are balanced only for the first level? After that there is severe problems.


Besides if i played a Troll (CR 10) in a typical campaign of characters from 5th-8th I could easily violate those limits? Sorry I still see no balance, the limit on _me_ is leveling, and moneyvalue. it still does not create inherent game blance.

Even an ogre with CR4 in a group ranging the 5-8th is at a great advantage since by that point he can get stacking armor that is magical and works with his Natural armor and he can buy/get stuff that works well with his other attributes as well as compensating for his weaknesses.

A smart party will outfir their best fighter with the best gear they can get him and keep him up and going on the front lines. No party is going to _try_ to make everyone balanced. trust me bubba but switching gear around just to prepare for a fight is pretty common. Heck i remeber my 1E, 19 Str Halfling thief(Girdle of Giant Str) kicking Waaaaaaay more tail than she should have...... Because you can "Suit up" a character with the best stuff a party has and easily walk over what would be appropriate challenges to the rest of the party.

Im sorry but CR is just as broken as you seem to think that the Hero system points are.

[AnotherSkip]

Oh yes by the way For the record I agree with tetsubo's Quote
"Points (equal points or even very precisely calculated points) do not make balance happen in play. Instead, balance in play is what shows the points and costs were appropriate."

Yep you are right, however if a Gm does not make them cool then they are wasted.

Howabout a character who builds a Great Cleave character and then you never run into more than two creatures at a time? Are not _those_ points wasted?

Basically it is up to the Gm and the player to work together to make the character workable as well as valuable. and that is the rub it equally applies to _every_ system. Not just Hero not just D&D, every system.

So Basically Tetsujii's rant is not about the HERO system but about ALL systems.

[tesuji]

Failed my will save, but then due to the indomitable will feat, got a reroll and made it.

Thanks for the unique perspective sharing there Anotherskip.

Happy holiday.

[tesuji]

a quick note to nightshade...

the MIDNIGHT sourcebook/worldbook out for d20 presents a new campaign "epic fantasy in the age of shadow" and has only the barbarian, fighter and rogue from the core books with all other classes replaced. it seems like a somewhat different magic system, but i only took a few minutes in my flgs to look it over.

I have heard good things about it but have no use for it right now myself.

[Rene]

Originally posted by tesuji
a quick note to nightshade...

the MIDNIGHT sourcebook/worldbook out for d20 presents a new campaign "epic fantasy in the age of shadow" and has only the barbarian, fighter and rogue from the core books with all other classes replaced. it seems like a somewhat different magic system, but i only took a few minutes in my flgs to look it over.

I have heard good things about it but have no use for it right now myself.


Seems like a good idea. This is the kind of stuff I'd like to see more for D&D. Those three classes are among the most versatile and universal from D&D. I really dislike the official magic system (and the classes that depends more heavily on it). They seem to me very little representative from fantasy literarure.

Basically I'd like a magic system that offered two other options: more free-form magic for the heavily magical classes (a la Ars Magica), and further options for more limited magical classes like the Ranger and Paladin from today, but getting rid of the times/day stuff and making them more customizable.

[rayoman]

Forget it.

What I had to say isn't worth writing, especially in this thread.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Rene

Basically I'd like a magic system that offered two other options: more free-form magic for the heavily magical classes (a la Ars Magica), and further options for more limited magical classes like the Ranger and Paladin from today, but getting rid of the times/day stuff and making them more customizable. Then you are going to like Fantasy HERO :)

[Rene]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Then you are going to like Fantasy HERO :)

I bet I will. :)

You know, I really really liked when D&D 3rd made their Skill-system more HERO-like. If only they'd got rid of the magic system...

[AnotherSkip]

I knew we'd eventually get to the best part.
Agreeing.

really the best part of any system is the friends you have to share it.

and the Spell System of AD&D is kinda based upon the magic system from Jack Vances works.

so as long as you understand where things are from you can kinda rationalise the system.

D&D can be a cool amalagam of stuff, until you want something really different.