Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

[Jeff]

Please pardon me for bringing them up at what's probably a late date for most people here. I just picked up the 5th edition a few weeks ago. I suppose, on the whole, it's an improvement, or at any rate, fresh support for recognizable Hero is thrilling any which way.

There are some specific changes that strike me as arbitrarily, well, bad, and I was wondering if there were reasons for them to ease the perplexity. There's also one specific change that I was surprised to find neither in the 5th edition rules or The Ultimate Vehicle.

The odd changes:
1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.

2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes. It was essentially a convenience on the one hand and a tip of the hat to a genre bit on the other - replaced by a need to concern oneself with the BODY value of the wardrobe. It's particularly odd when there's an alternative just sitting there - Shapeshift with limitations.

3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time. Instead, we're to buy basically the same effects with other powers - when there _aren't_ other powers specifically to affect size or mass - and take disads for the drawbacks - when actually using those powers and Always On would conveniently define those drawbacks.

These are the first times I've ever seen Hero Games development deliberately do things the hard way - when the tremendous flexibility of the system trots out easy ways with all its usual charm.

The change I'm surprised wasn't made was suggested in an Adventurer's Club article on vehicles - tripling the cost of their defenses. It's done for the Takes No STUN automatons for the very same reason - if you don't have to worry about STUN, standard costs for defenses make BODY damage trivially easy to avoid.

So - any word on what was behind these?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Jeff
1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.
This one has been argued many times. The general idea is that Images, as written in FREd, is used to create something from nothing. Change Environment, once again as in FREd, primarily deals with taking away. If you look at all the possible modifiers in CE you will see that most of them are negative modifiers (minus to PER, to Skill Roll, To Movement, etc).


2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes. It was essentially a convenience on the one hand and a tip of the hat to a genre bit on the other - replaced by a need to concern oneself with the BODY value of the wardrobe. It's particularly odd when there's an alternative just sitting there - Shapeshift with limitations.
This one does not bother mean, and even has some perks (such as being able to put it in a Power Framework). The power basically states that you do not need to concern yourself with the actual rolling. Using the Standard Effect rule it always works.


3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time. Instead, we're to buy basically the same effects with other powers - when there _aren't_ other powers specifically to affect size or mass - and take disads for the drawbacks - when actually using those powers and Always On would conveniently define those drawbacks.
I actually prefer doing it the FREd way, so I will not bother to debate you on the issue. The main issue here is that Growth and Shrinking are supposed to be for characters who can alter their size, not those that are always stuck at a certain size. If you choose to go the Always On route you would also have to take Inherent.


The change I'm surprised wasn't made was suggested in an Adventurer's Club article on vehicles - tripling the cost of their defenses. It's done for the Takes No STUN automatons for the very same reason - if you don't have to worry about STUN, standard costs for defenses make BODY damage trivially easy to avoid.
Vehicles already have the cost of the DEF triples (+1 DEF cost 3 points). An Automation, unless he takes the No Stun Option, only has to pay +1 for 1 point (it becomes +1 for 3 points if he takes the No Stun option).

[schir1964]

You may want to do some searches for existing threads on these specific things you mentioned. All of them have had huge debate on them. So don't be alarmed, you're not the only one. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Monolith]

Originally posted by schir1964
You may want to do some searches for existing threads on these specific things you mentioned. All of them have had huge debate on them. So don't be alarmed, you're not the only one. (8^D)
I think all the debates were in the old forum, and I am not sure if that is searchable. :)

[Gary]

Originally posted by Monolith

Vehicles already have the cost of the DEF triples (+1 DEF cost 3 points). An Automation, unless he takes the No Stun Option, only has to pay +1 for 1 point (it becomes +1 for 3 points if he takes the No Stun option).

Not really. Vehicles get +1 resistant PD and ED for 3 pts, essentially the cost of armor. A Takes No Stun automaton would pay 9 pts for the same level of protection.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gary
Not really. Vehicles get +1 resistant PD and ED for 3 pts, essentially the cost of armor. A Takes No Stun automaton would pay 9 pts for the same level of protection.
This is true. I cannot argue that, but I do not think it is something which needs to be changed. Automations have other advantages that vehicles do not (such as having a brain and independent action). The extra cost of DEF does not bother me because of that.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Jeff
1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.No, but it is the creation of an effect from nothing. Also, Images has an existing mechanism for PER modifiers, making it easy (if you wish) to define exactly how bright the light is, etc.

2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes.I'm not too keen on this one either, mainly just from a simplicity point of view. We still use the 4th Edition versions in our games. I imagine the reason it was rolled into Transform was to make the core rules less superhero-centric.

3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time.I have no problem with the concept. My only point of disagreement with the 5th Edition paradigm is saying that you can't use Growth, Shinking, or DI with Always On to simulate the effect if you want to.

There are a lot of advantages to doing it the 5th Edition way, not the least of which is that you don't have to buy every element of the effect if you don't want to. Perhaps you have a spry giant who shouldn't get as big a DCV penality or something. Not buying Growth lets you work around this.

But on the other hand, if you do want everything that Growth includes, I see no reason not to let you buy it as Growth, Always On if you want to. I allow either method in my games, though I tend to build things the 5th Edition way myself. :)

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Monolith
I think all the debates were in the old forum, and I am not sure if that is searchable. :)

Judging from an hour going at it for Instant Change - I thought it'd be the easiest one for the search engine - I think you're right on that one.

[JmOz]

Derek, you said

No, but it is the creation of an effect from nothing. Also, Images has an existing mechanism for PER modifiers, making it easy (if you wish) to define exactly how bright the light is, etc.


Problem is that you could have just as easily changed it to a positive modifier in CE instead of Images. I personaly feel that it wuold be more appropriate for CE than Images be the power to do that (and for that matter the power to generate homing signals, etc...)

[Gary]

Originally posted by Monolith
This is true. I cannot argue that, but I do not think it is something which needs to be changed. Automations have other advantages that vehicles do not (such as having a brain and independent action). The extra cost of DEF does not bother me because of that.

The problem comes when vehicles fight PCs. It's ridiculously cheap for a vehicle to buy lots of Def or Force Field and make themselves virtually invulnerable to PC's.

If vehicles only fight vehicles, and PCs only fight other PC's, there is no problem. If you have them face each other, an equal point vehicle will almost certainly beat the typical PC. This may be "realistic", but it certainly doesn't have a superheroic feel.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gary
The problem comes when vehicles fight PCs. It's ridiculously cheap for a vehicle to buy lots of Def or Force Field and make themselves virtually invulnerable to PC's.

If vehicles only fight vehicles, and PCs only fight other PC's, there is no problem. If you have them face each other, an equal point vehicle will almost certainly beat the typical PC. This may be "realistic", but it certainly doesn't have a superheroic feel.
While I do not disagree with you I do think that the example you describe above is what the GM is for. The GM is the judge and is responsible for making sure a game does not become unbalanced. Increasing the cost of a vehicle's defenses is not going to stop people from creating munckin vehicles if they desire. Everything is on a 5 to 1 ratio as it is, so spending another 10 points gets you another 50 points of DEF.

I do not think every rule needs to be absolutely equal. I just think the GM needs to set his own standards for balance between PCs and Vehicles.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Gary
The problem comes when vehicles fight PCs. It's ridiculously cheap for a vehicle to buy lots of Def or Force Field and make themselves virtually invulnerable to PC's.

If vehicles only fight vehicles, and PCs only fight other PC's, there is no problem. If you have them face each other, an equal point vehicle will almost certainly beat the typical PC. This may be "realistic", but it certainly doesn't have a superheroic feel.

If you don't increase the cost of vehicle defenses, or put very low caps on them, you get bizarre results for the points for vehicle on vehicle combat too. 60 points will get you a 4d6 RKA, doing 14 BODY on an average roll. Unlike KA STUN values, you get a serious bell curve for 3, 4 or more d6 on the BODY values - the extreme results are fairly rare. 60 points of standard vehicle DEF will get you 20 points resistant PD and ED. So you need significantly more active points in attacks before you even begin to penetrate a little on an average roll. Mind you, you might be more easily able to pile on more limitations on the attacks to get comparable real point costs - maybe - and the system tends to have somewhat higher active point totals for attacks than for defenses. But you still get vehicles that have a far, far harder time getting hurt than characters do, just because the game's damage system assumes that most significant damage is going to be STUN damage rather than BODY damage.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Jeff
But you still get vehicles that have a far, far harder time getting hurt than characters do, just because the game's damage system assumes that most significant damage is going to be STUN damage rather than BODY damage.
Your theory has a couple of flaws. First off, 60 points of attack power never equates to 60 points of defensive power. I can make a superhero with 60 points of defensive powers who is completely immune to an average roll of 4d6 killing too.

Secondly, when designing vehicles you take into account what you are fighting. If it is fighting a superhero who does 12d6 of damage then the GM makes a conscious decision as to how much DEF he gives the vehicles. If the GM gives it 13 DEF he is expecting the hero to exceed his limits by being forced to push or use Haymakers on a constant basis to defeat the vehicle. If the GM gives the vehicle 10 DEF then he is expecting the hero to defeat the vehicle within a few hits.

You do not need to increase the cost of vehicle's defense to work within that concept. While you make a good point about stun, the fact of the matter is that that stun damage will still carry through to the occupants of the vehicle in some cases. That is never the case with an Automation who takes the No Stun power. You are not getting away with anything because a vehicle has proportionately equal defense cost.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Monolith

Vehicles already have the cost of the DEF triples (+1 DEF cost 3 points). An Automation, unless he takes the No Stun Option, only has to pay +1 for 1 point (it becomes +1 for 3 points if he takes the No Stun option).

1. This is a common error; unless it's changed in 5th, defense on vehicles is bought for both PD and ED, and is resistant as a default. As such, the price given is exactly the same as buying armor; there's no increase at all.

2. Vehicles already take no stun, so they're already in the same category as the latter sort of automaton.

It really is simply inconsistent. And it make vehicles way too efficient a way to effectively buy defense.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Paragon
It really is simply inconsistent. And it make vehicles way too efficient a way to effectively buy defense.
Well, you are not supposed to be buying a vehicle just to get some DEF. You are supposed to be buying a vehicle to get something to ride around in/on. :)

I will just stick with my opinion, expressed in my last post, that the GM is the final arbiter as to how much DEF is too much. The untimate difference in cost, whether it is 3 points for 1 DEF or 5 points per DEF like Force Wall is really unimportant if the GM limits the vehicle to 10 DEF (+8 DEF costs a player 5 points at 3 per and 8 points at 5 per. 3 points one way or the other does not make any real difference).

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Monolith
Well, you are not supposed to be buying a vehicle just to get some DEF. You are supposed to be buying a vehicle to get something to ride around in/on. :)

I will just stick with my opinion, expressed in my last post, that the GM is the final arbiter as to how much DEF is too much. The untimate difference in cost, whether it is 3 points for 1 DEF or 5 points per DEF like Force Wall is really unimportant if the GM limits the vehicle to 10 DEF (+8 DEF costs a player 5 points at 3 per and 8 points at 5 per. 3 points one way or the other does not make any real difference).

I'm afraid I can't agree; costs should be commensurate with value, or what's the point in having a cost system? While a different cap for vehicles than characters produces the effect, it's an overt sign that the costs are off when otherwise the process would be overly attractive.

And vehicles and vehicle-like constructs are a bit too common for me to find this something I can feel blaise about.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Paragon
I'm afraid I can't agree; costs should be commensurate with value, or what's the point in having a cost system? While a different cap for vehicles than characters produces the effect, it's an overt sign that the costs are off when otherwise the process would be overly attractive.

And vehicles and vehicle-like constructs are a bit too common for me to find this something I can feel blaise about. What's your fix? Superhero games aren't all about building your vehicles. If we set costs on vehicles high enough to alleviate your concern, then we punish people for wanting to have a Weavel-Mobile. There is more to game balance than simply measuring the cost of DEF for vehicles and the cost of Armor for characters.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Agent X
What's your fix? Superhero games aren't all about building your vehicles. If we set costs on vehicles high enough to alleviate your concern, then we punish people for wanting to have a Weavel-Mobile. There is more to game balance than simply measuring the cost of DEF for vehicles and the cost of Armor for characters.

Trippling the cost, same as for automatons. I see nothing punishing about that; for a routine vehicle the difference will be trivial; it's only armored vehicles which will show a noticeable increase.

And in this case I think that the game balance issue really _is_ that simple.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Paragon
Trippling the cost, same as for automatons. I see nothing punishing about that; for a routine vehicle the difference will be trivial; it's only armored vehicles which will show a noticeable increase.

And in this case I think that the game balance issue really _is_ that simple. So, if you don't want to ride around in a paper tissue, you have to spend a great deal of points on something that often won't even be involved in the adventure. We have a difference of opinion.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Agent X
So, if you don't want to ride around in a paper tissue, you have to spend a great deal of points on something that often won't even be involved in the adventure. We have a difference of opinion.

The fact you already pay one-fifth the cost of buying the defense normally makes me remarkably unsympathetic to this claim; if it really rarely is involved in the game, why is the player being charged at all? If it's occuring often enough you should charge him, then I think it should be charged appropriate to what the defense often means...which is that no damage gets to the character at all.

[TheEmerged]

Shamless plug!

Anybody interested in a listing of the changes can find one at my site (http://theemerged.blogspot.com/HERO425.htm). In fact, thanks for bringing an obvious one I'd missed to my attention (Instant Change).

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Paragon
The fact you already pay one-fifth the cost of buying the defense normally makes me remarkably unsympathetic to this claim; if it really rarely is involved in the game, why is the player being charged at all? If it's occuring often enough you should charge him, then I think it should be charged appropriate to what the defense often means...which is that no damage gets to the character at all. You have to buy most stuff in Champions, including the Weavel-Mobile. Now, the Weavel-Mobile maybe a really tough car and it may occasionally be useful in combat, but it may also not be helpful in the underground hq of the villain, the other-dimensional realm the heroes get whisked to, etc. Still, the Weavel wants his Weavel-Mobile and he wants it to be cool! He wants it to have stats and be unique and he wants to be effective when not driving the Weavel-Mobile.

I hear your criticism about potential abuses but I haven't seen them take shape. Why change a system because somebody you would probably tell to leave your game table would do something extraordinarily silly? Why inconvenience a player from buildng a cool character with a cool vehicle because of what some joker you wouldn't play with would do? Dont' you have the GM look over every character construction anyway? Doesn't the GM have the right to say no to a character that is legalistically correct but abusive to the spirit of the game? I can build some very mighty characters that will whip vehicle boy and don't require cheesy power constructions. Simple is often the most effective.

[Monolith]

The only time the DEF number of a vehicle really becomes an issue is when the GM allows a player to buy one as a Powered Armor suit. Any other time a vehicle becomes nothing more than a plot device.

Batman is driving down the street, the Joker's thugs shoot at him in the Batmobile, Batman loses control and crashes into a dumpster, Batman gets out and beats up the Joker and his thugs.

The Avengers are flying from New York to St. Louis and over Ohio the Quinjet is hit by some missiles. Thor uses his weather powers to create wind and help Cap land the jet.

99.9% of the time a vehicle is nothing more than a conveyance device. It gets attacked if the GM wants to advance the plot (Oh No! The X-Men are trapped in the Savage Lands!) but most of the time it is just a way to get from point A to point B. There is no real need to increase the cost of a vehicle's DEF when it is not a central point of the character. Those points are better spent on things the character WILL use 99% of the time, IMO.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Monolith
The only time the DEF number of a vehicle really becomes an issue is when the GM allows a player to buy one as a Powered Armor suit. Any other time a vehicle becomes nothing more than a plot device.


I'm sorry, but I can't agree; any character who is built around a vehicle as an operating prodedure will use it frequently, not just the power suit vehicles. Mecha drivers, your Jetboy equivelents and more. It's not an extremely common trope, but it's not as rare as you're putting on here.




Batman is driving down the street, the Joker's thugs shoot at him in the Batmobile, Batman loses control and crashes into a dumpster, Batman gets out and beats up the Joker and his thugs.

The Avengers are flying from New York to St. Louis and over Ohio the Quinjet is hit by some missiles. Thor uses his weather powers to create wind and help Cap land the jet.

99.9% of the time a vehicle is nothing more than a conveyance device. It gets attacked if the GM wants to advance the plot (Oh No! The X-Men are trapped in the Savage Lands!) but most of the time it is just a way to get from point A to point B. There is no real need to increase the cost of a vehicle's DEF when it is not a central point of the character. Those points are better spent on things the character WILL use 99% of the time, IMO.

And in most of those cases I don't see why the players should be purchasing the vehicle in the first place; it's a convenience for the GM, not a functional ability ot the PC. It's the cases where they do purchase them where I expect them to be problematic, and those are just the cases where I expect the costs to be relevant in the first place.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Paragon
I'm sorry, but I can't agree; any character who is built around a vehicle as an operating prodedure will use it frequently, not just the power suit vehicles. Mecha drivers, your Jetboy equivelents and more. It's not an extremely common trope, but it's not as rare as you're putting on here.



And in most of those cases I don't see why the players should be purchasing the vehicle in the first place; it's a convenience for the GM, not a functional ability ot the PC. It's the cases where they do purchase them where I expect them to be problematic, and those are just the cases where I expect the costs to be relevant in the first place. Do you get any of the logistical considerations in why vehicles are 5/1 and that you don't want to spend most of your points allotted to vehicles to be based on DEF just so you don't have to worry about 30 strength characters turning your vehicle into Swiss Cheese?

Mecha Drivers and Jetboys are usually centered on just their vehicle. Many characters have useful vehicles that are not the principle theme of the character and it really shouldn't be set up in the system to punish players for daring to run a complex character with bases, vehicles, etc.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Paragon
I'm sorry, but I can't agree; any character who is built around a vehicle as an operating prodedure will use it frequently, not just the power suit vehicles. Mecha drivers, your Jetboy equivelents and more. It's not an extremely common trope, but it's not as rare as you're putting on here.
In the superhero genre, the one where you pay Character Points for equipment, it is very rare. There are not many "mecha" superheroes. In a heroic genre game it does not really matter because most of the time the character is not paying the points for the mecha himself. He is being supplied the mecha. In that instance it does not matter what the cost of the DEF is.


And in most of those cases I don't see why the players should be purchasing the vehicle in the first place; it's a convenience for the GM, not a functional ability ot the PC.
In some cases yes and in some cases no. I would never make Batman pay character points for a JLA transport but I would make him pay points for his "Bat" vehicles; as well as his Batcave. Personally, I do not make characters pay for group items like vehicles and bases.


It's the cases where they do purchase them where I expect them to be problematic, and those are just the cases where I expect the costs to be relevant in the first place.
Well, as I said above, the GM is the person who limits the DEF of a vehicle. If the GM lets someone buy 20 DEF (and thus making the vehicle to tough to damage) then that is the GM's fault not the systems. Either way I do not see it being a real cost issue. A vehicle's DEF is not as versatile as a Force Walls, and IMO should not cost more.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Monolith

Well, as I said above, the GM is the person who limits the DEF of a vehicle. If the GM lets someone buy 20 DEF (and thus making the vehicle to tough to damage) then that is the GM's fault not the systems. Either way I do not see it being a real cost issue. A vehicle's DEF is not as versatile as a Force Walls, and IMO should not cost more.

And I thoroughly disagree; on the whole, a vehicle itself is far more useful than a Force Wall, and it's defense is an intrinsic property of that benefit. And it doesn't take a 20 Defense to be a problem; in fact, if you just use the resistant defense values suggested in the rulesbook, it will protect a character inside it long after any other defense would have failed them.

Now you _can_ patch the problem at that end by limiting the maximum far lower than on a character, but that's still only addressing half the issue.

The bottom line is almost every excuse made for vehicles can be made for automatons; it's simply not consistent to do it two different ways here, and while not a critical system flaw, it is a system flaw.

[TheEmerged]

Hello, Vehicle Def debate? Yes, Strength Cost, Kryptonite Man, and Linked have agreed to add you to the Legion of Things HERO Players Debate A Lot. What symbol should we paint on the chair?

[Paragon]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Hello, Vehicle Def debate? Yes, Strength Cost, Kryptonite Man, and Linked have agreed to add you to the Legion of Things HERO Players Debate A Lot. What symbol should we paint on the chair?

Break-dancing APC? :)

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Paragon
And I thoroughly disagree; on the whole, a vehicle itself is far more useful than a Force Wall, and it's defense is an intrinsic property of that benefit. And it doesn't take a 20 Defense to be a problem; in fact, if you just use the resistant defense values suggested in the rulesbook, it will protect a character inside it long after any other defense would have failed them.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, but if you cannot see having Force Wall as being more versatile than a vehicle then I cannot help you with that.


The bottom line is almost every excuse made for vehicles can be made for automatons; it's simply not consistent to do it two different ways here, and while not a critical system flaw, it is a system flaw.
The difference is that players are not Automations, or are not riding in Automations. An Automation is an opponent or a Follower. It is not something which effects the PC in any real way. A vehicle does, and thus the cost needs to be more balanced with the powers the player will be purchasing.

I think you are just on a tangent, so we will just agree to disagree.

[Tech]

I've seen some of these before but hey, why not?


Originally posted by Jeff
The odd changes:
1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.

I can go either route, here.


2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes. It was essentially a convenience on the one hand and a tip of the hat to a genre bit on the other - replaced by a need to concern oneself with the BODY value of the wardrobe. It's particularly odd when there's an alternative just sitting there - Shapeshift with limitations.

IMO, the new Instant Change reeks. Sure, it can be done with Transform (but there are some big problems with it, one of my players pointed out recently.) However, it replaces the simplicity of the first 4 editions of Instant Change and makes it tedious in it's explanation.


3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time. Instead, we're to buy basically the same effects with other powers - when there _aren't_ other powers specifically to affect size or mass - and take disads for the drawbacks - when actually using those powers and Always On would conveniently define those drawbacks.

I use the 5th ed somewhat reluctantly. I've heard Steve's explanation on this and only very mildly agree with him. I'll probably try going back to previous rules for these.


These are the first times I've ever seen Hero Games development deliberately do things the hard way - when the tremendous flexibility of the system trots out easy ways with all its usual charm.


Yep, then again, that what House Rules are for.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Shamless plug!

Anybody interested in a listing of the changes can find one at my site (http://theemerged.blogspot.com/HERO425.htm). In fact, thanks for bringing an obvious one I'd missed to my attention (Instant Change).

I got page cannot be displayed.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by zornwil
I got page cannot be displayed.

Blogger gets finicky sometimes. I just tried it, still up.

If the problem persists, let me know.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Monolith
The only time the DEF number of a vehicle really becomes an issue is when the GM allows a player to buy one as a Powered Armor suit. Any other time a vehicle becomes nothing more than a plot device.

Batman is driving down the street, the Joker's thugs shoot at him in the Batmobile, Batman loses control and crashes into a dumpster, Batman gets out and beats up the Joker and his thugs.

The Avengers are flying from New York to St. Louis and over Ohio the Quinjet is hit by some missiles. Thor uses his weather powers to create wind and help Cap land the jet.

99.9% of the time a vehicle is nothing more than a conveyance device. It gets attacked if the GM wants to advance the plot (Oh No! The X-Men are trapped in the Savage Lands!) but most of the time it is just a way to get from point A to point B. There is no real need to increase the cost of a vehicle's DEF when it is not a central point of the character. Those points are better spent on things the character WILL use 99% of the time, IMO.

I agree in part, same with bases.

That is why I have set up a house rule, using the perk "Membership". Essentialy you can pay 1-5 points to become a team, when you become a team you get access to a base and appropriate vehicles (This is what you are paying the points for, for one point you have a cave and a simple vehicle; for five your base is on the moon or a space station and you have TP machines).

Vehicles and Bases can still be bought, and for characters like Batman, quite common

[Killer Shrike]

Ive had many PCs in various games with various vehicles over the last 13 years or so of the HERO System. To my mind the DEF is the least of my concerns when running thier characters. The speed, turn radius, and handling of the vehicles is the more common concern; vehicles tend to be faster than characters with native enhanced movement because of the point rebate.

I cant recall DEF ever being an issue on the other hand. In fact, if anything, vehicles tend to be a bit fragile in the bigger picture when you consider that they dont heal; they must be repaired. So, any damage they take is a real bummer.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Blogger gets finicky sometimes. I just tried it, still up.

If the problem persists, let me know.

It works now - good reading! I don't have time but will read more later.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Ive had many PCs in various games with various vehicles over the last 13 years or so of the HERO System. To my mind the DEF is the least of my concerns when running thier characters. The speed, turn radius, and handling of the vehicles is the more common concern; vehicles tend to be faster than characters with native enhanced movement because of the point rebate.

I cant recall DEF ever being an issue on the other hand. In fact, if anything, vehicles tend to be a bit fragile in the bigger picture when you consider that they dont heal; they must be repaired. So, any damage they take is a real bummer. As a GM, I am happy when players can get to the adventure. I love for characters who don't have a reason to have hyper-running, flight, etc. to have an independent means of arriving on time. Players don't always help each other out and it isn't always a circumstance for them to do so. Sometimes, greater capabilities for Player Characters make it easier for the GM to set up a good story entertaining to all.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Agent X
As a GM, I am happy when players can get to the adventure. I love for characters who don't have a reason to have hyper-running, flight, etc. to have an independent means of arriving on time. Players don't always help each other out and it isn't always a circumstance for them to do so. Sometimes, greater capabilities for Player Characters make it easier for the GM to set up a good story entertaining to all. Agreed.

But then of course the PCs get into a fight in thier Hexajet, chasing the villains, who are on foot in the crowded city......

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
Agreed.

But then of course the PCs get into a fight in thier Hexajet, chasing the villains, who are on foot in the crowded city...... ...and their Hexajet can't get into the upscale ladies department store.

[zornwil]

Emerged, great writeup on changes.

Maybe I missed it, but I would have thought it would have bugged you enough to mention it that Damage Reduction no longer applies to Penetrating Attacks.

[TheEmerged]

/* raises eyebrow

I didn't mention that? Hmm, I wonder if it got lost in an editting cycle or something...

/* adds a line to his "To Do" list

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Agent X
...and their Hexajet can't get into the upscale ladies department store. No, but the flying sky-cycle might be able to, or the mobile assualt attack cycle, or the grav-sled, etc etc etc.

[TheEmerged]

Corrected. It looks like I must have chopped it off when I added the comments about Mental Damage Reduction, probably intending to reword them.

Also added a blurb about Summoning, a power I had purposefully left off because its changes are hard to discuss without violating the "don't make it so detailed someone could print this list instead of buying the prodcut" mandate Steve gave me.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike
No, but the flying sky-cycle might be able to, or the mobile assualt attack cycle, or the grav-sled, etc etc etc. Never said they couldn't but I think this business about vehicles costing too little is silly. I don't need to build a vehicle to min-max in Hero.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Agent X
Never said they couldn't but I think this business about vehicles costing too little is silly. I don't need to build a vehicle to min-max in Hero.

I dont think vehicles cost too little. I think vehicles cost about the right amount.

I merely pointed out that fixating on their DEF as an unbalancing ability was IMO missing the far more efficient purchase of movement via a vehicle. I mean, if the guy wants to stress about Vehicles in his game, he might as well stress over something a little more substantial than "my ride is durable". :D