Combat Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about combat that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about combat that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

[Aroooo]

Not sure where to put this, so here made the most sense to me. About the only major change I'd like to see is damage standardization across 'scales.' Make damage more granular, or linear, not log based.

Aroooo

[CourtFool]

I am torn on the Speed chart. Yes, it is a large piece of Hero but I think characters having different SPDs causes more problems than it might be worth. 1. Who wants to play the guy with a lower SPD? In my groups, I usually have everyone at the same SPD anyway so no one feels left out to MR. 10 SPD. 2. It adds complexity, which is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but is it really worth it?

I like that attacking ends an action. Otherwise you have to start adding Attacks of Opportunity or some such.

Yes, you should change the default way the Attack Roll is presented. Another Skill works for me and is more consistent.

I like having Normal and Killing Damage, although I think the only time it really matters is in Supers campaigns. Everywhere else people just use Killing...don't they?

How about a damage save like Mutants & Masterminds? Sacrilege? You do not have to keep track of Hit Points. Non-killing damage just knocks an opponent unconcious. No more 20d6 fireballs. Alright, I will shut up now.

[Thia Halmades]

Not sure where to put this, so here made the most sense to me. About the only major change I'd like to see is damage standardization across 'scales.' Make damage more granular, or linear, not log based.

Aroooo

I just said the exact same thing elsewhere in this shiny new mess. But yes, agreed. Speaking of which, are we doing anything OTHER than discussing 6th next Saturday?! :ugly:

[Bismark]

I have been a long-time proponent of linear damage (and armour values) for Heroic games especially (my first post was about making STAR HERO weapons HURT...).

I know that it can result in scary numbers, like in GURPS, where [in 3rd ed - I don't have 4th] a 9mm pistol round did about 2D6 or 2D6+1 damage, whereas a 7.62mm NATO rifle round did 7D6, and sci-fi armour could be up in the 60 DEF-equivalent range, but it does add granularity.

Of course, what the DEF of a 'brick' Supers character would have to be to bounce 120mm APFSDSDU ammo from the gun of a main battle tank is genuinely scary (as is the thought of the points cost) - at the risk of getting flamed for 'heresy' here, something like the FUZION (yes, I said the forbidden word ;)) 'Kills' system might be needed for Supers..

[CourtFool]

Now I am thinking of Truth & Justice's scale. A concept like that could allow more granularity for Heroic games (maybe stay linear) and allow Super Heroic games to jump on the exponential train.

[Bismark]

Please keep the Speed Chart - it's one of the defining things about the game (for me at least)

[arosslaw]

Personally I'd prefer to see the Speed Chart go. As noted above and in many, many other posts, most games make everyone have the same speed to avoid the problem of one guy monopolizing the session. The problem is while it is nice to have something that allows you to show someone is just quicker than other people, its too good a stat and everyone maxes it out because you're an idiot if you don't.

A lot of other games find a fix for the super-speed problem (and let's face it, that's what speed was designed to address, really) without the problems speed causes. Really, we already have movement, extra HTH damage, clinging, et al to cover the super speed tricks. And in comics supes and flash don't act MORE than other characters, they just act quicker which is DEX not SPD anyway.

Separate and apart from Speed, though strongly related to it, whatever we do in 6th ed, please please please please please find a way to make combat FASTER!!!! I've have more players turned off by how slow the game plays than by the complexity. They like min-maxing but that that one bank robbery takes 2-4 hours to run. The system needs to get away from its war-gaming roots and run faster. Whether that means going from 3d6 to a single die, standardizing damage, I don't know, but that's going to determine whether I pick it up or not.

[Enforcer84]

What games have really fast combats?
I can't think of an RPG I've ever played where a big combat was not a chunk of time.

[Aroooo]

For the speed chart, I'm torn. I like it from the character perspective. Sure, it can get abusing at times. And a really fast character in a Supers game can take over a combat session. But that what the game is all about, and a good GM should be able to handle that. But I'd like to see it go from a vehicle perspective. I've always had issue with trying to balance character movement with how I perceive inanimate objects should move. Not to mention what a mess it can make on trying to calculate a vehicle's movement rate. I think in the long run we could probably do away with the Speed chart and figure out a better way to represent the Speedster type characters.

But like all change, I'm not sure I'd be happy with anything other that what I've grown so used to over all my years playing and GM'ing Hero :)

Aroooo

[Susano]

Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.


Attacking the moving is very cinematic, which is something HERO does well. I've seen the effect in a lot of HK wuxia films and Japanese samurai movies and anime. One solution is "X" actions per phase (such as move, draw weapon, attack, ready spell and so on), but that might be cumbersome. Another is to allow some sort of Attack and Move combination that isn't a Move-By. Example -- running (or flying) along firing a gun or energy blast. It is a common staple of cinema to see a character run a "Full Move" and keep pulling the trigger on his weapon (or drop a grenade). And HERO is all about cinematic realism after all.



Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.


This works, but requires us to roll high, correct? Personally, I've gotten good at 11 = my CV and thus a 12 = my CV -1, while an 8 = my CV +3. I can give a DCV I've hit without knowing my foes DCV.



Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.


Not really (IMO). Making it an Advantage just adds to character sheet clutter.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

I think streamling how CLSs are used would be very nice.

[Log-Man]

Many arguments have been made in both directions on the SPD chart, so I won't rehash them here. I'll just say that I'm one that would like to see it changed or drastically modified.

The SPD chart is a 'defining characteristic' of the game for some; for others it is symbolic of the often times overly complex system.

[steamteck]

I like the speed chart basically but I will admit I halved it to 6 phases for my game. Even a speed three over a speed two makes the players feel quick and elite. I like it but a little simplification might be in order.

In movies, the heroes do often seem to be able to do more things than the mooks in a given time.

[gregghelmberger]

Re: Speed Chart, for me it is one of the defining elements of the game and one of the things I point to when describing why Hero is superior to other systems. I do like the idea of quick people acting more frequently than other people.

This dates me, but I can remember that Villains and Vigilantes did the same thing by having multiple actions per round, with faster characters getting more actions in the round. That worked too, and if you really dislike the Speed Chart you could do something along those lines to get the same effect without a chart.

One thing I would like if the Speed Chart stays is some of the options presented in Ultimate Speedster to make it into the mainstream rules as far as having more randomness involved in the initiative, even if it's only as options. One of my beefs about the Speed/Dex initiative system is that you always know what order everyone's moving in, which feels manipulative to me. Introducing an element of randomness into the process would make it more interesting to me -- that is, if you have a Speed of 5, you always ought to get five actions in the Turn, but you shouldn't necessarily always know when they're going to come up. I'm not sure if you want a Chit system, or be able to pay Hero Points to move your action up in the round, or whatever.

A related issue is attacks of opportunity. As it stands now, once you make your attack you have to stand motionless until your next action comes up, even if an enemy in front of you turns his back to pick something up, walks around you, or does something else that "realistically" would present an easy target. I'd like to see some rule where extra attack actions can be granted so that people can't just waltz around the battlefield with impunity the way they can now. I admit I don't have any great ideas for the mechanics of it, only that it shouldn't require you to abort your next action to do it. Maybe each character could get a number of attacks of opportunity per turn based on Speed or some other factor? These attacks could only be used when an enemy disengages or otherwise moves through the character's attack range. This could of course present play balance issues but this is something that's bothered me about Hero for a long time.

[Susano]

Personally, I'd lime more detail given to what facing means. How does one attack from behind? Move 3" and swing? What is meant by "from surprise"? If you're going to give people tactical options, then the book needs to explain what they are and when the GM should implement them.

[steamteck]

I agree I'd really like to see facing defined. When and how one can attack form behind. if you're attacked from the side as opposed to the front etc what difference.

[Susano]

I agree I'd really like to see facing defined. When and how one can attack form behind. if you're attacked from the side as opposed to the front etc what difference.

Facing would also make the Ambidexterity Talent far more useful, and would make shields have a lot more meaning in FH games.

[Sean Waters]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?



I like the speed table and, for those who don;t, all that is needed is to build all chracters at the same speed, and you can pretty much ignore it: if everyone is SPD 3 then you get 3 actions (each in DEX order) then a recovery.



Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

I don't see this makes any difference at all, so long as the rule is consistent. There are already maneouvres and powers that allow you to move after attacking - I can't see a need for change.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Hmm. I'm more inclinded to go the other way and make skill rolls like combat, and part of the reason why is that it makes some things more difficult: halving your OCV is more problematic if you have a pre-figured 'attack skill' (for instance when atatcking an invisible opponent, or when grabbed)

[quote=Steve Long;1536890]Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

It doesn't bother me too much if we do 'killing' as an advantage or a seperate power. I'd probably make KAs work a bit differently: they would only be stopped by resistant defences, but would cost more.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?




Oh yes :)

[eternal_sage]

first off, i think SPD is only useful in a SuperHEROic game. at HEROic level, its really just a waste of time, since everyone generally has the same, however, it makes FH "haste" and "slow" spells easy to make, as well as make Jedi characters real ass kickers with the right Force Powers, which is as it should be, and crosses that Heroic/Superheroic line.

second, i think that a serious reconsideration needs to be done in the terms of Normal vs Killing damage. in my opinion, the difference should really be more of a "STUN only" vs "Does BODY" type of question. thats just me, though, so i doubt anyone else agrees.

and as for adding damage... YES. either it adds or it doesn't. if i wanted a list of exceptions i'd still be using d20s.

[Vondy]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Curse of Fire, Steve.... Curse of Fire.




Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Artificial... maybe.

Necessary... absolutely.

This is a balance issue and the rule works.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Yes. I had players who simply could not wrap their heads around the way it has traditionally been expressed (for yeeeeaaaars....), but did get it when expressed the way you suggested.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Makes sense, and works without ripping the guts out of the system are two different things.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?


I recommend streamlining them and trusting in the GM (though a leeeetle paragraph stating the following might be problematic and should be carefully considered before approving builds is probably good for new GMs).

In fact, this is a major premise of mine: let the GM make the decision, but inform new GMs of potential pitfalls so they can make an informed decision.

[Vondy]

And now for a Von Rant!

I have a peeve - its the method used for adjudicating grabs and breakout rolls for grabs. There is no reason to be rolling body and comparing. This is a legacy mechanic and what's more, unlike an entangle, a grab doesn't have body to fight through. This should be handled with opposed characteristic rolls modified by maneuver or situational modifiers with the greater margin of success winning the contest.

And I have another peeve - its the way presence attacks and mental powers with level of effect are handled. While what follows may not work for mental powers, I do think presence attacks could be handled with an opposed characteristic roll (with modifiers) and comparing the relative margins of success (and or failure). This worked well - and quickly - in my games. I'll see if I can dig up the chart.

[The Main Man]

The SPD chart should be changed, but not eliminated.

1 Turn = 6 Seconds/Segments so that a minute is 10 Turns.

[Mark Taylor]

What games have really fast combats?
I can't think of an RPG I've ever played where a big combat was not a chunk of time.

If run properly (which involves taking a couple of minutes for just a little pre-combat preparation) I've found both Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play and Feng Shui can run combats extremely quickly compared to most other systems.

[eternal_sage]

nWoD combats are really quick, even a big 6 on 6 Werewolf freeforall will only take around 10 or 15 minutes, and anything without werewolves is a few quick turns and its over. me like nWoD for this reason.

[nexus]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about combat that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about combat that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?


Like I’ve said before, the SPD chart is a core Hero mechanic and should, IMO, be left alone. Frankly, I’ve never found it that cumbersome.



Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?


The introduction of Fmove Martial arts maneuvers opens up the possibility of what you described and the effect is currently only available from Martial Arts which is odd. Though yes, I do see the danger in creation “unhittable” characters (I’ve seen it other rules sets).so it should be approached carefully. Perhaps a modification to the rules for Held Actions?




Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?


No strong opinion on this yet.



Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?


I think Killing Damage might work better as an Advantage. One of the reasons being that Stun Lotto drives me up the wall; I see too many players capitalizing in the fact its relatively difficult to do Body in a Superheroic and using Killing Attacks for the massive amounts of Stun. It would also make it easier to build “Bulletproof” Superheroic characters.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?


This is probably a good idea. I’ve been playing for over 20 years now and that’s one area that still trips me up from time to time.

[Edsel]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
Emphatically No. It is a principle part of the game, a core mechanic, and a feature that I throughly like.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?
At most you might allow a Zero PHA action but I don't think it should be changed.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.
I like the system as it is. I definitely like rolling low to hit. A re-presentation might help new players grasp the concept easier.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?
No. I like having the two different versions of damage. It helps to show the distinction between attack type. Something intended to kill verses an attack simply intended to take the target down without aiming to kill.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?
I think that streamlining this is a good idea. It can get confusing at times.

[Thia Halmades]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Thia's Thoughts: I agree with Steve on this; while it takes a while to learn, I think the SPD Chart really does a wonderful job of showing precisely how many actions per turn someone gets in relation to someone else, and it also handles "when" things occur automatically. Instead of asking in d20, "When do I get those extra attacks?" I look at the SPD Chart and know precisely how "fast" someone with a SPD 5 is, and why that's important. So I'm in the "OMG please don't touch this" camp.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Thia's Thoughts: I think that NOT being able to raises a number of really valid tactical points. I also think it does a lousy job of simulating genre fiction (frex, the dramatic run under the cover of fire before you turn, THEN fire, THEN leap off the balcony into the pool below). So while it presents "problems" in the Superheroic sense, it makes far more sense, at least on the Heroic side, to allow it.



Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Thia’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

(that's right -- I didn't change anything other than the word "Steve" to the word "Thia" because we already do it this way and it's far, far simpler.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Thia’s Thoughts: I've seen people discuss it on the boards, but I'm squarely in the "Keep it and make it more granular if possible" camp. For example, I'd love to see weapons that deal 1d6+3 damage, Penetrating, which are currently not allowed within the rules. But no, we should definitely not eliminate Killing/Normal damage breakdowns.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Heh. Yes. I have no idea HOW, but yes. Please dear G-d clarify it because I still argue with ghost-angel about it.

[Chris Goodwin]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.

I don't believe it should be removed, but I think a way to play the game without using it would be a great idea and should be a toolkitting option.

[BlackSword]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

I like the speed chart, its easy to understand, spreads out multiple actions across the entire Turn and makes it easy to simulate some characters being faster than others. If the speed chart is changed, I would recommend a system similiar to Exalted's intiative order, except change it so that speed is determined by a character's SPD characteristic modified by the action they are performing.

[Susano]

I like the speed chart, its easy to understand, spreads out multiple actions across the entire Turn and makes it easy to simulate some characters being faster than others. If the speed chart is changed, I would recommend a system similiar to Exalted's intiative order, except change it so that speed is determined by a character's SPD characteristic modified by the action they are performing.

That sounds like the system Feng Shi uses.

[Steve]

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

I wouldn't have a problem with this. It does make it easier to teach to new players who would otherwise goggle at me when I explain the current method.

Additionally, I wonder if this could be taken one step further, to create a form of "active defense" like how Block works. Character A attacks and makes a roll, Character B makes a defense roll. Whoever makes their roll by more points wins. I only mention it because Block functions this way, and it may make one-on-one fights a little more exciting.



Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.

I'm ambivalent on this one, pending some thought on it. I'd be more inclined to do something that finally deals once and for all with the "STUN Lotto" of killing attacks.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

YES! As a GM who is dealing with newer players, simplify/streamline it.

At the risk of sounding like a heretic, one of the few things I liked from Fuzion was how it handled damage, with the characteristics of STUN and HITS. Since everything is on the table, what would people think of using those two tracking stats for damage?

[SSgt Baloo]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.

I think it works fine, though I'd like to see movement decoupled from SPD. With perhaps 12" running per turn as the base, costs adjusted accordingly (about half as much as now) and the total amount being distributed evenly among the phases available to the character?


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.

I always like the systems where your movement and ability to attack were independent of one another. That way, if someone moves without attacking, anyone moving near the guy is a possible target. No-one can then say to themselves "The bad-guy just did more than a half-move! I'm safe for X amount of time".

"Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?


Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

I think the way you described should be the default.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.

I've always wondered why normal and killing attacks used different dice. One is stopped by normal defense while the other is only stopped by Resistant defense. I propose that Killing Attack should be an advantage on normal attacks. Killing attacks would then be (slightly) NND except against resistant defenses. Normal defenses would only apply to the Stun, with the minimum Stun being equal to the amount of body that gets through defenses.

[Alibear]

Me, I would stop the post 12 recovery. Nothing grates me more that that.

When I'm in the dojo I rarely get a wee lull in combat to take a breather. If I did I would get clobbered. A couple of good punches and a fight is all but over. I feel recoveries unduly extend the length of combat so it becomes a war of attrition rather than the fast-paced, explosive combats I'm used to seeing in comics and TV.


If someone wants a recovery they could by all means take one if he was happy being O DCV.

[Maur]

I like that attacking ends an action. Otherwise you have to start adding Attacks of Opportunity or some such.


Funny since the system with the AoO also has it where an attack action ends your round unless you have special feats that let you move after you have attacked...

[buzz]

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.
Yes. I had already been doing this for a while, as it's the only way to get newbies up and running, especially during con events.

Separate suggestion: Streamline the combat modifiers. I think 5ER has two separate charts of various conditions and situations that modify combat rolls. Almost all of them boil down to +/- up to about 5 to the roll. I'd prefer a concise list of what's worth +/-1, +/-2, etc.

[buzz]

Personally, I'd lime more detail given to what facing means. How does one attack from behind? Move 3" and swing? What is meant by "from surprise"? If you're going to give people tactical options, then the book needs to explain what they are and when the GM should implement them.
QFT. These are total Mother-May-I situations right now.

[buzz]

Funny since the system with the AoO also has it where an attack action ends your round unless you have special feats that let you move after you have attacked...
Wrong. Your turn does not end after attacking in d20. You just can't move both before and after unless you have certain feats.

[Fireg0lem]

I'm just going to comment on SPD. It definitely should stay, BUT it does need a tweak for game balance. The problem is that there's a HUGE difference between a 2 SPD and 3 SPD, more than, say, between an 8 and a 10. It really sucks being the one 3 SPD character when the other PCs have 4. The stat is just too good.

My suggestion is to rebalanced the price as follows. First, make it dependent on the game's base points (just put it in the table next to base and disadvantages - shouldn't be too hard for people to use and understand). Second, make it scale upwards at higher levels. For example, in a 250-point game:

SPD Cost
1: -20
2: 0
3: 20
4: 50
5: 90
6: 140
7: 210
8: 280
etc.

This encourages people to have speeds in a specific range (in this case, 3, maybe 4, and the guy with the 4 speed is paying for it), but allows for higher speeds without making them a super-cheap advantage.

Obviously, the numbers above aren't perfect, but I think the basic idea would be a big improvement.

[Choldath]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
Please, no! Speed is what makes the game, in my opinion. If you're going to do something with speed, maybe change it to a Fixed characteristic instead of Figured. This will probably upset a lot of people, but it makes buying SPD that pretty much puts everyone on the same tier. If you have a high DEX, you also have a "higher" SPD, OCV and DCV. I think that linking them together gives too much of an advantage.

I like the idea of halving the SPD chart, but I don't think it'd work well with the above.

I like the idea of randomness, but it will only slow things down. Think 2e D&D. You rolled Initiative each round, too long and drawn out. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a "Spending Luck" or "Spending Character Points" (WEG Star Wars) to move faster in the round (effectively Higher DEX on a 1 for 1 basis).

I liked Alternity's Initiative, but could never get it to flow smoothly for me. You roll to see where you go in the 4 phases. If you had a Marginal Sucess, you go last and 1st if you have an Amazing success. If you have more than 1 action per round, you could use it on any round after. However, you have to roll each round.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?
No, unless it's a power. Game play issue. Someone brought up Attack of Opportunity. I don't like it as a core option, but would respect it as an optional rule. Playing d20, there is so much abuse. "I can move here to avoid any attack of opportunites." Munchkin. Eventually, all the wolves in d20 have tactics that keeps them from AoO. I can't remember the last time I played that anyone didn't think long and hard about their movement, let alone the last time I saw an AoO.

I'm not opposed to a 1 hex (5') step as a Zero Phase. That gives a few more options to all involved.

By the way, d20 is an attack or move at any time during your action, unless a full action is done (further complicated by Spring Attack which allows moving twice, before and after the attack, up to your Movement Rate). If you do not move from one hex to the next (ex, standing is a move action), you can take a 5' step. You can take a 5' step as part of a Full Action.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?
Please! I also like how I learned it (and still use when we game late in the night). OCV - Die Roll + 11. Ex, 5 OCV - 12 on the dice + 11 = DCV 4. I think that if you add the other options to a Sidebar, they will help people understand. It's all in the way you say it and the way the other person understands it.

Edit: Not sure why I wrote it up wrong, must be the late at night thing.

Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?
I don't know the rules enough to comment. However, it makes sense to consolidate. If that's the case though, it might not be a bad idea to consolidate the Defenses in the same respect.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?
Steamlined. I always had troubles with this, but not sure why. If it wasn't written down on my sheet (like increasing STR), I always had an issue with adding the new STR bonus

[CorPse]

Personally, I'd lime more detail given to what facing means. How does one attack from behind? Move 3" and swing? What is meant by "from surprise"? If you're going to give people tactical options, then the book needs to explain what they are and when the GM should implement them.

This a great point... add one "me too" from me.

[SuperPheemy]

Keep the Speed Chart with 12 Segment Turns. It's fine how it is, and it's fundamental to the image of HERO combat.

I think that a good option to consider is vayring the definition of how long a "phase" is from genre to genre. For example, in a Superhero Champions-type game, one phase could be defined as one Panel in a comic book, with the time of that panel slightly mutable. Some panels are a blink of an eye, but others could be as long as a second or two. Because it's the comics, the exact timing is more of a handwave anyway, and this would help to reinforce genre convention. Obviously, panel timekeeping wouldn't work quite so well for "real world" settings, so in a gritty world, one phase = one second, period. More cinematic games could vary the time assumed for one phase in different manners based on the need of that particular campaign. Maybe a really cinematic Fantasy setting could define a phase as 3 seconds or something similar.

The point is that a "phase" could be redefined as the time it takes to complete a dramatic action in combat. Each turn would still be made up of 12 segments, and each phase would remain defined as a segment in which a character acts.

[ajackson]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
My experience with the speed chart is that it models something useful, at a cost of being pretty clunky in play, with a high chance of forgetting about someone or something. It might be nice to consider other ways of modeling the same effect, either through multiple actions rules, or through some sort of action point system. As an example of an action point system which is mechanically nearly identical to the speed chart:

Every segment, each character gains action points equal to his/her SPD. When your action points go past 12, the character takes a normal action, and action points are reduced by 12. A character who is delaying does not gain any action points.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Having dealt with systems where it's possible to do so, I'd say No.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Yes. I would also convert the whole mess to a roll-high system; it's one of the few things Fuzion did correctly.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

The big problem with Killing Damage has always been the stun lottery -- not only are KAs the best way of killing unarmored targets, they're the best method of getting stun through on hardened targets. Fix that (say, 1/2d6 for the stun mod) and KAs cease to be a particular problem.

[archermoo]

Personally I'd prefer to see the Speed Chart go. As noted above and in many, many other posts, most games make everyone have the same speed to avoid the problem of one guy monopolizing the session. The problem is while it is nice to have something that allows you to show someone is just quicker than other people, its too good a stat and everyone maxes it out because you're an idiot if you don't.


In 25+ years of playing Champions/HERO I've never once played in a game that anyone even suggested that people might want to have the same Speed, much less actually require it. Nor have I played in a game that even all of the PCs had the same Speed (except for the occasional solo game) much less one that all of the NPCs did too. So I'd say that rather than "most games" requiring everyone have the same Speed that it would be more accurate to say that there are some people out there that always do it, but as near as I can tell they are a pretty small minority.

I have frequently played characters who had less than the maximum allowed Speed for a campaign. In fact, I'd have to say that I've only rarely had a character that has bought it up to the maximum. Especially in Superheroic campaigns.

[Susano]

Speaking of the "STUN Lotto" we've had great success with a flat x3 STUN with +1 STUN = x4 (and so on).

[buzz]

As a general comment, I've gotten to dislike how uniform PCs get w/r/t to combat. If you look at the sample Champions PCs in 5ER, almost all of their attacks and defenses live in exactly the same range. I saw this happen all the time in my games, too. I'm not sure what the solution would be, but it makes things pretty homogenous.

[archermoo]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Short answer: NO! Long answer has already been posted in the Characteristics discussion thread.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

I don't really like this idea, though having it in the system as an option might be a good thing.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

I've been doing it as adding/subtracting the difference between what you roll and 11 to your OCV to determine what DCV you hit for longer that I can remember.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Please no, another one of those things that I consider pretty core to HERO.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

YES, PLEASE! :)

[Zeropoint]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

NO! I love the Speed Chart, it's part of what makes Hero unique, and it adds a lot of flavor to combat. Please keep it!

HOWEVER: it does cause some problems, as mentioned above. I think the idea of decoupling SPD from DEX is a good idea: DEX is quite the "God stat" as it stands, and even at three CP per point, it still makes sense for any combat-oriented character to but it up to 20--it provides OCV, it provides DCV, it improves a lot of skill rolls, AND it gives you SPD!

Having SPD cost more per point as you get more of it also sounds like a good idea, although I'm not at all sure how much of an increase it should be.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.


Oh yes, definitely. It's MUCH easier to understand it this way.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Not eliminated, really--it makes sense to me that it's a heck of a lot harder to shrug off a knife or bullet just by being "tough" than it is to ignore fists and chair legs. On the other hand, it could stand to be simplified a lot. Having two different dice mechanisms, AND having to keep track of two different sets of defenses, AND having different defenses apply to different components of the damage is a bit much.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Definitely. Right now the rules are quite annoying, and I don't really like thinking about them or trying to use them.



A related issue is attacks of opportunity. As it stands now, once you make your attack you have to stand motionless until your next action comes up, even if an enemy in front of you turns his back to pick something up, walks around you, or does something else that "realistically" would present an easy target. I'd like to see some rule where extra attack actions can be granted so that people can't just waltz around the battlefield with impunity the way they can now.

I disagree.

The way I see if, if a character has used all of his actions up to the current segment, then he's BUSY; he's giving something his full attention. He can only do so much in a given period of time, and having someone turn their back on him shouldn't magically give him the ability to do more in the same time.

Between holding actions and half-phase actions, and aborting, I don't see any problem in this area.

[buzz]

Suggestion: would you please get rid of all the acceleration/deceleration nonsense? The RAW for this stuff is goofy as-is, and it's all far more complicated than anything my groups were ever able to actually implement in play. This is one of those creeping "realism" bits that really needs to go, IMO.

[caris]

In 25+ years of playing Champions/HERO I've never once played in a game that anyone even suggested that people might want to have the same Speed, much less actually require it. Nor have I played in a game that even all of the PCs had the same Speed (except for the occasional solo game) much less one that all of the NPCs did too. So I'd say that rather than "most games" requiring everyone have the same Speed that it would be more accurate to say that there are some people out there that always do it, but as near as I can tell they are a pretty small minority.

I'm not positive, but I think the other person did not mean "most Hero games", but "most game systems" as in most games like Shadowrun, RoleMaster, WOD, etc.

[Pattern Ghost]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.


Someone suggested a six phase speed chart. I kind of like that idea. Otherwise, I'm in favor of keeping the Speed Chart with one or two good alternatives in Side Bars. (Maybe Option A being randomizing, and Option B being using speed as extra attacks.)



Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.


Allowing movement after attacking seems OK, provided you only get one move action per phase. In other words, no half move to target, attack, then half move away. We already have other exceptions via Martial Arts, etc, that would allow a passing strike.



Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.


Sounds good to me. I'd suggest putting both methods in the text though, so people know it's the same mechanic, just expressed differently.



Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.


I'm in favor of this. I'm also in favor of having ONE attack power, with modifiers, rather than EB, HTH, RKA, KA. Make Killing Attack a +1/2 advantage for double body on the roll, and Resistant a +1/4 advantage for defenses, which would negate the advantage. This would solve the Stun Lotto problem. This would make killing/resistant work more like ap and pen/hardened, which is a simpler mechanic.

Example:

60 AP KA now: 4d6k, average of 14 BODY
60 AP KA as Advantage: 8d6k, average of 16 BODY, no Stun Lotto.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

I'm in favor of changing these rules. It's probably the messiest section of 5th Edition's combat rules.

[Enforcer84]

If run properly (which involves taking a couple of minutes for just a little pre-combat preparation) I've found both Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play and Feng Shui can run combats extremely quickly compared to most other systems.
I don't recall asking you.
:D
I kid.
Played one, not the other, and can't remember if combat was quick. Heck I can't remember if there was combat.

[CorPse]

The Adding Damage rules are just boggling. I'm sure there's some sort of logic there, but I have a hard time remembering rules that I can't understand conceptually. (Most of Hero is very intuitive, at least to me.)

Usually I handwave "Adding" if I can't remember it, but when I run PvP bashes at conventions, I feel obliged to go digging for the sake of fairness to all of the parties involved.

Other things...

Speed Chart: I dig it, it feels core-ish to me, I'd vote to keep it.

Ummm....

Guess that's it for now.

[Baz]

I am relaxed about the speed issue but one combat area that really bugs me is how base ocv and dcv is based on Dex. And how a highly DEx'd "rogue" becomes a combat machine simply by having high dex. I think ocv and dcv should be figured characteristics based on seperate criteria and be a mix of Dex and Str. Heck, why not go down the Rolemaster route and seperate DEx into Agility and Quickness.

Just cos your are very dexterous why should you be hard to hit or very good at hitting - never made any sense to me.

Also at the same Speed level Dex goes first, but if all the actions in that phase take a 2nd why is it not considered simutaneous (sp?)

[Markdoc]

In 25+ years of playing Champions/HERO I've never once played in a game that anyone even suggested that people might want to have the same Speed, much less actually require it.

I have. It sucked like an industrial hoover. It was an experiment and one which all participants swore a sacred blood oath never to repeat. Having tried it, it's just a terrible, terrible idea - I can't think of anything you could do to more "d20-ize" Hero system combat. And that's not a complement.


Nor have I played in a game that even all of the PCs had the same Speed (except for the occasional solo game) much less one that all of the NPCs did too.

Apart from that one dreadful game, neither have I. Players - especially in Heroic Games - tend to gravitate over time to SPD4, but it's rare for everyone to be there and NPCs can be all over the chart.

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable

Agreed. I actually houserule the SPD chart, but as a basic construct it's very sound. Removing SPD altogether - and we've tried games where this was done - really messed with multiple aspects of the game.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Yes, sometimes it creates odd disconnects - although, to be honest, odd disconnects happen in real life too - but for balance reasons, I'd be strongly opposed to changing this. It's simply way, way, too open to abuse. We already have move/attack combos in move-through and move-by. Perhaps expand these to all attacks, if you must, but keep them as an action-ending option.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Make it 10 + OCV + dice roll, rather than 11+. That keeps the probability the same as the current system and is what we what we have been doing for ages. Having run con games and taught many n00bs, the inverted roll is far, far, far easier than the current system. As someone also noted, the block mechanic then also become intuitive - it's essentially an OCV+ roll dice-off.

This approach works a charm and speeds combat significantly even with people who are not hero n00bs, in my experience.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

No. We need both. But having read the various threads on this, I have changed my long-standing position. I think we should use the same dice for both and make KA an advantage, similar to AVLD. Adjust AVLD so that the cost reflects whether a defence is common, uncommon or rare (and give examples. rDEF is common - Flash DEF is rare, for example).

At the same time, simplify resistant DEF - so that rDEF stops the BOD from a killing attack, while Stun - whatever its origin, always goes against total DEF. None of this "rDEF stops the BOD but not the Stun, which goes against rDEF + normal DEF, unless you don't have any rDEF, in which case normal DEF doesn't count".

You lose a little granularity, but simplify combat, remove the STUN lottery, simplify the location chart, rationalize the cost difference between killing and AVLD and end up with killing attacks being better for killing, while for the same active points, normal attacks are better for stunning. This way you can also build bricks who will be able to bounce bullets with immunity - and they'll need some help in this regard if you remove Figureds.

At the same time you can also - see below - simply the damage adder mechanism, since you no longer need special rules. A DC becomes a d6, regardless and advantaged attacks (which KA now become) prorate STR the same way they have always done.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Yes, But see above - altering how we do killing attacks is big step towards this. If a killing attack is simply an advantaged attack, you can treat them the same as any other DC. I do like the rule about using CSLs to add extra damage and would like to see this retained, tho' as it adds a simply understood tactical option..

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

Personally, I'd lime more detail given to what facing means. How does one attack from behind? Move 3" and swing? What is meant by "from surprise"? If you're going to give people tactical options, then the book needs to explain what they are and when the GM should implement them.

This is a good one. It would eliminate the (IMO) silly move where combatants continuously half move behind each other to get the "From behind" DCV penalty



nWoD combats are really quick, even a big 6 on 6 Werewolf freeforall will only take around 10 or 15 minutes, and anything without werewolves is a few quick turns and its over. me like nWoD for this reason.

While that might work for a Horror game (where any combat is supposed to be quick and brutal) I don't agree it fits for Hero. Also, I haven't found Hero combats to take longer than fights in any other system. All the "All Hero battles take 4 hours minimum" is hype, IME. I've had Hero fights that lasted 20 minutes in Heroic games and usually no more than an hour in superheroic aside from huge set piece fights (5+ supers on each side with agents that sprawled across most of major shopping mall and the surrounding area, for example) which took 3 hours but frankly it would taken that long in any but the most dirt simple systems.

The longest fights I've experience have been in D and D and Storyteller.

re: Moving after attacking

After some consideration, I think that might be best implemented as Skill building off of Rapid Attack. Perhaps it could come in levels like Defensive Maneuver?

Edit: From my perspective, I admit it is weird to picture two guys fighting, one takes a swing then immediately turns and runs away full tilt before the other one can counterattack. I mean it can happen and does, just seems odd and will probably happen in game more often than in real life because unless its tactically disadvantageous to do so. But, Hero doesn't model reality so...

[nexus]

Suggestion: would you please get rid of all the acceleration/deceleration nonsense? The RAW for this stuff is goofy as-is, and it's all far more complicated than anything my groups were ever able to actually implement in play. This is one of those creeping "realism" bits that really needs to go, IMO.

I disagree strongly with this. Make it explicitly optional at worst.

[buzz]

1. I agree that the rules for adding damage are insane. Please simplify them.

2. Crits need to be core. Superheroic (and some heroic) combats are so tediously long because opponents tend to have similar attack and defense levels, making it really hard to actually hurt anyone. Some sort of core crit system (max damage, attack becomes armor-piercing, etc) would help speed things up, IMO.

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?I'm with you on this one -- leave it in place. However, as I mention in the discussion on SPD (and one or two others do too), there needs to be some way of providing greater differentiation at lower SPD levels.
Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?I think the issue you raise could be worked out with some sort of "fire-and-duck" Combat Maneuver, possibly with OCV and/or DCV penalties for making an Attack Action and then doing something else like running for cover. It's something I do see on TV every so often, and I may even have seen superheroes do it (I don't remember for sure), so why not?
Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?Given your logic, I'd encourage this.
Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?I'm with you on leaving this as it is, though I'd encourage a name change from Killing Damage -- I've seen a GM reject a character's Killing Attack -- a knife meant for cutting ropes and such -- on the basis that the character had a Code Against Killing. (Though this is probably a discussion for another section.)
Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?I'd streamline these rules rather than make any wholesale changes... though now that I think on it, streamlining probably constitutes a wholesale change.

[archermoo]

I'm not positive, but I think the other person did not mean "most Hero games", but "most game systems" as in most games like Shadowrun, RoleMaster, WOD, etc.

Possibly, but that wasn't my take on what they said. And I've come across a few other posters here that have mentioned that their way of dealing with not liking the Speed Chart was to just force everyone to have the same Speed.

[archermoo]

I have. It sucked like an industrial hoover. It was an experiment and one which all participants swore a sacred blood oath never to repeat. Having tried it, it's just a terrible, terrible idea - I can't think of anything you could do to more "d20-ize" Hero system combat. And that's not a complement.



Apart from that one dreadful game, neither have I. Players - especially in Heroic Games - tend to gravitate over time to SPD4, but it's rare for everyone to be there and NPCs can be all over the chart.

Cheers, Mark

You have my sympathy. :ugly:

[archermoo]

This is a good one. It would eliminate the (IMO) silly move where combatants continuously half move behind each other to get the "From behind" DCV penalty


As a note, HERO doesn't have a "from behind" DCV penalty. There is a Surprised modifier which lists "attack from behind" as one way of getting it. But it also specifically notes that if the defender has good reason to believe that they will be attacked that it probably shouldn't apply. I'm pretty sure if you are fighting someone and they run around behind them to attack they'll still be pretty well aware of what is going on.

[Susano]

As a note, HERO doesn't have a "from behind" DCV penalty. There is a Surprised modifier which lists "attack from behind" as one way of getting it. But it also specifically notes that if the defender has good reason to believe that they will be attacked that it probably shouldn't apply. I'm pretty sure if you are fighting someone and they run around behind them to attack they'll still be pretty well aware of what is going on.

Actually, it does. There is "From Behind" and "From Surprise."

[archermoo]

Make it 10 + OCV + dice roll, rather than 11+. That keeps the probability the same as the current system and is what we what we have been doing for ages. Having run con games and taught many n00bs, the inverted roll is far, far, far easier than the current system. As someone also noted, the block mechanic then also become intuitive - it's essentially an OCV+ roll dice-off.

This approach works a charm and speeds combat significantly even with people who are not hero n00bs, in my experience.


Just thought I'd provide a counter example to this. I've taught quite a number of people HERO over the years, and have never had any of them have any problems grasping and holding on to the idea that you want to roll low to succeed at things but roll high to determine effect. Not one. Until I read about people disliking it here the idea that it could possibly be a problem had never even occured to me.

The way I've pretty much always described attack rolls to people: Roll 3d6. If you roll 11, you hit a DCV equal to your OCV. For every 1 you roll under 11, add 1 to your OCV to determine what DCV you hit. For every 1 you roll over 11 subtract 1 from your OCV to determine what DCV you hit.

Simple, straightforward, fast. Never had anyone have a problem understanding it.

[archermoo]

Actually, it does. There is "From Behind" and "From Surprise."

Steve has noted in the past that the "Attacked from Behind" in combat and out of combat were included in the list on p373 of 5ER for ease of people looking it up, and that it is part of the Surprised modifer explained on p380. Which, as I noted specifically notes that if you know someone is attacking you it doesn't matter if they are doing it from behind or not.

[nexus]

As a note, HERO doesn't have a "from behind" DCV penalty.

Yes it does. Check the table on Page 373. There's a modifier for Attack from Behind in combat and Out of combat.


Steve has noted in the past that the "Attacked from Behind" in combat and out of combat were included in the list on p373 of 5ER for ease of people looking it up, and that it is part of the Surprised modifier explained on p380. Which, as I noted specifically notes that if you know someone is attacking you it doesn't matter if they are doing it from behind or not.

And that ruling is only useful if you saw that particular statement from Steve Long so it would be something to cleared up in the expanding explanation of Facing and its effects on combat in 6th which was what we were talking about. Too many people; many of them on this board have argued that just running around behind some should count as Half DCV. I think that ridiculous and obviously against the spirit of the rules as well.

[Susano]

Just thought I'd provide a counter example to this. I've taught quite a number of people HERO over the years, and have never had any of them have any problems grasping and holding on to the idea that you want to roll low to succeed at things but roll high to determine effect. Not one. Until I read about people disliking it here the idea that it could possibly be a problem had never even occured to me.

The way I've pretty much always described attack rolls to people: Roll 3d6. If you roll 11, you hit a DCV equal to your OCV. For every 1 you roll under 11, add 1 to your OCV to determine what DCV you hit. For every 1 you roll over 11 subtract 1 from your OCV to determine what DCV you hit.

Simple, straightforward, fast. Never had anyone have a problem understanding it.

This method has always worked for me as well. And you never need to be told what the DCV of you foe is.

[Susano]

Steve has noted in the past that the "Attacked from Behind" in combat and out of combat were included in the list on p373 of 5ER for ease of people looking it up, and that it is part of the Surprised modifer explained on p380. Which, as I noted specifically notes that if you know someone is attacking you it doesn't matter if they are doing it from behind or not.

Well I can tell you this started a great deal of discussion in our group about what that meant.

EDIT: and as Nexus said, it only helped if you'd seen Steve's ruling. And since the GM doesn't come to these boards (and I'd never seen said ruling), that didn't help matters much.

[archermoo]

Yes it does. Check the table on Page 373. There's a modifier for Attack from Behind in combat and Out of combat.



And that ruling is only useful if you saw that particular statement from Steve Long so it would be something to cleared up in the expanding explanation of Facing and its effects on combat in 6th.

I agree that clarification in 6th would be a good idea. I was just pointing out that while people may mistakenly assume that any attack from behind automatically results in a DCV modifier that actually isn't the case.

And it isn't just a matter of someone happening to see that ruling. It is after all in the FAQ.

[nexus]

And it isn't just a matter of someone happening to see that ruling. It is after all in the FAQ.

And some haven't read the faq on it since it seems clear. Not every Hero player pours over it or even comes to these boards.I can recall at least two threads on this board over it The point being its not widely spread common knowledge among Hero players and something that important to come should be.

[Susano]

I agree that clarification in 6th would be a good idea. I was just pointing out that while people may mistakenly assume that any attack from behind automatically results in a DCV modifier that actually isn't the case.

And it isn't just a matter of someone happening to see that ruling. It is after all in the FAQ.

Which my GM has never seen. Heck, I haven't looked at it in ages.

[JohnTaber]

Hi Folks: Simple idea...

Suggestion = If you perform a half move before attacking you get -1 on your OCV.

Reasoning = This is intuitive and makes sense to me. I have always used this rule and was surprised to see it go away. Bring it back.

[Cancer]

Erp. I put comments about the SPD Chart and general timekeeping system in the General Rules Thread. If it would be more appropriate to have that here, by all means move the post.

EDIT: link (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1543976&postcount=119)

[JohnTaber]

Suggestion = Somehow add information to the character sheet detailing how armor and hit locations work together.

Reasoning = For some reason the new Hero player in my game has problems with this. If this was on the sheet somehow it would help him get over this issue.

[Vondy]

I agree that clarification in 6th would be a good idea. I was just pointing out that while people may mistakenly assume that any attack from behind automatically results in a DCV modifier that actually isn't the case.

And it isn't just a matter of someone happening to see that ruling. It is after all in the FAQ.

FAQ that!

The rules need to be in one place.
The GM is under no obligation to refer to the FAQ when ruling.
The FAQ is, at this point, a joke when length is considered.

[archermoo]

FAQ that!

The rules need to be in one place.
The GM is under no obligation to refer to the FAQ when ruling.
The FAQ is, at this point, a joke when length is considered.

It is long, but easy to search.

And yes, not everyone accesses it. As I said, I agreed that some further clarification might be useful. I'll also point out that not everyone is confused by it either. It seemed pretty obvious to me what was meant the first time I saw it come up. I can certainly see how it might confuse some people, I'm just not one of them. It probably would've been clearer to put on the chart "Attacking from behind (see Surprise)" instead of just giving the Surprise modifiers for it. But I figured I'd go with the part of the rules where attacking from behind is discussed rather than just appearing in a chart.

And I'll note I never said anything about a Ref being obligated to do anything. They're free to rule against what is said in the FAQ (or even the core rules) if they want. I certainly have. I was just noting that the intent of the rules was not to have a blanket DCV modifier for being attacked from behind. If a Ref wants to do it that way anyway, that is of course up to them.

The FAQ isn't changes to the rules. The FAQ is Steve answering questions for people when they are unclear as to what he meant by what he wrote.

[archermoo]

And some haven't read the faq on it since it seems clear. Not every Hero player pours over it or even comes to these boards.I can recall at least two threads on this board over it The point being its not widely spread common knowledge among Hero players and something that important to come should be.

Which is why I keep agreeing with you that it should be more clear. Heck in the FAQ entry Steve notes that he should clarify it.

I only pointed out that the rules already didn't have a blanket "attack from behind" modifier. The fact that people assume there is one is an entirely different issue.

[Xotl]

I'd like to request that combats start at Segment 1 rather than Segment 12. Besides the intuitive issue - people expect the start of combats to be at the start of the turn, rather than at the end - Segment 12 starts drag out combats for no real purpose. Everyone takes a shot, and then everyone gets an immediate recovery. This just makes combats longer for no gain at all. What's the point?

[Susano]

I am finding myself agreeing with no Post-12 recoveries at all. This is one reason why.

[BobGreenwade]

I'd like to request that combats start at Segment 1 rather than Segment 12. Besides the intuitive issue - people expect the start of combats to be at the start of the turn, rather than at the end - Segment 12 starts drag out combats for no real purpose. Everyone takes a shot, and then everyone gets an immediate recovery. This just makes combats longer for no gain at all. What's the point?For this reason I start combat on what I call Segment Zero. If anyone is "Surprised" by the combat (such as with an ambush) then they don't get to move on Segment Zero, and there's no immediate Post-12 Recovery, but it does get everyone started at the same time.

I'd make Segment Zero an option in the rulebook, but start at Segment 1 by default.

[Susano]

Say... wasn't a recovery after the initial Segment 12 removed in 5th?

[Xotl]

For this reason I start combat on what I call Segment Zero. If anyone is "Surprised" by the combat (such as with an ambush) then they don't get to move on Segment Zero, and there's no immediate Post-12 Recovery, but it does get everyone started at the same time.

I'd make Segment Zero an option in the rulebook, but start at Segment 1 by default.

I like the idea of incorporating surprise into the main turn order, but is it really beneficial to have everyone start at the same time though? I'd suggest you have only characters with surprise act on Segment 0: otherwise you start at the beginning with Segment 1 as expected. Introducing a Segment 0 would make the concept of "Zero Phase Actions" potentially confusing to new players, however. However it's handled, I'd really like see Phase 12 starts gone.

[Xotl]

Say... wasn't a recovery after the initial Segment 12 removed in 5th?

No: pg. 424 states it occurs after each Segment 12 unless you're unconscious or holding your breath.

[CorPse]

Well, not starting on 12 increases the chances of getting one-punched...

Players don't exactly love being told... uh, yeah, you can just read your copy of Mechaton: Giant Fighty Robots while the rest of us spend the evening on this long and involved battle.

That having been said, maybe it's worth it to tighten up combats.

[BobGreenwade]

I like the idea of incorporating surprise into the main turn order, but is it really beneficial to have everyone start at the same time though? I'd suggest you have only characters with surprise act on Segment 0: otherwise you start at the beginning with Segment 1 as expected. Introducing a Segment 0 would make the concept of "Zero Phase Actions" potentially confusing to new players, however. However it's handled, I'd really like see Phase 12 starts gone.The way I tend to go is:


If neither side is Surprised and everyone knows a battle's about to take place, everyone starts on Segment 0.
If one side is Surprised but the other isn't (like an ambush), then the surprisers start on Segment 0.
If it's an "accidental encounter" (like meeting a Wandering Monster in a dungeon), then skip Segment 0.


There are variations, such as if there's a tense moment and some idiot fires off a shot that throws things into battle, but them's the basics.

[Tonio]

Regarding both the SPD chart and moving after attacking...

What if we double-up the SPD chart, but use it for half-actions rather than full actions? Or just rule that you can only execute half an action in one Phase (full phase actions take an extra phase)? Or something of the sort? That way, there is no "move after attack", since you can only move OR attack, having only a half-phase in which to act. Basically, for different enough SPDs, it doesn't matter: the faster guy still gets two half-action Phases before the slower guy. But for close enough SPDs, one guy still gets a half-phase between the other guy's two half-phases.

Basically, finer granularity in the SPD chart.

[buzz]

However it's handled, I'd really like see Phase 12 starts gone.
Agree 100%. In the con events I've run, getting newbies to grok combat starting on segment 12, then recover, *then* finally getting to 1 was always a chore. It's not intuitive at all.

[MarkusDark]

Q: Should the "Haymaker" be removed from the rules?

I think it should be. It is just a 20 point push that doesn't require the high end cost with a segment delay. Also, trying to coordinate segments to make it work is just an extra headache that I don't think the rules need.

[Susano]

Q: Should the "Haymaker" be removed from the rules?

I think it should be. It is just a 20 point push that doesn't require the high end cost with a segment delay. Also, trying to coordinate segments to make it work is just an extra headache that I don't think the rules need.

I have to disagree there. Haymakers have been used many times, at dramatic moments, to do cool stuff. Yes, it's a 0-END "push", but sometimes, you need those.

[archermoo]

Agree 100%. In the con events I've run, getting newbies to grok combat starting on segment 12, then recover, *then* finally getting to 1 was always a chore. It's not intuitive at all.

Wheras I've never had any problems getting people to understand it. It is another one of those things that until I first saw it mentioned here on the Hero boards it hadn't even occured to me that anyone might have a problem understanding it.

[steamteck]

I also like starting on phase one but that's how my group does it anyway. I do want post 12 recoveries to stay though. Heck I'd like more excuses for recoveries but post 12 is fine.

[Xotl]

Wheras I've never had any problems getting people to understand it. It is another one of those things that until I first saw it mentioned here on the Hero boards it hadn't even occured to me that anyone might have a problem understanding it.

Even if it isn't necessarily hard to understand (and you're right, it isn't), it's certainly neither intuitive or useful, and it definitely does slow down combats for absolutely no gain.

[archermoo]

Even if it isn't necessarily hard to understand (and you're right, it isn't), it's certainly neither intuitive or useful, and it definitely does slow down combats for absolutely no gain.

While I disagree. I like starting on 12 quite a bit. It is the only Phase that every Speed other than 1 goes on. And I very much like getting that Post-12 Recovery right off the bat.

As to it being intuitive, no part of any game is particularly intuitive. If they were you wouldn't need to write the rules down. It is easy to explain, easy to implement and at least in my opinion quite useful.

[nexus]

While I disagree. I like starting on 12 quite a bit. It is the only Phase that every Speed other than 1 goes on. And I very much like getting that Post-12 Recovery right off the bat.

As to it being intuitive, no part of any game is particularly intuitive. If they were you wouldn't need to write the rules down. It is easy to explain, easy to implement and at least in my opinion quite useful.

I like starting on 12 too. Everyone, except the almost unheard of Spd 1 gets an action at the beginning of combat. Seems simple enough to understand. Starting on one means no one gets an action except for the incredibly rare Spd 12 character

"Combat begins on segment 12 so everyone gets an action." hasn't overly confused anyone that I've played with including a group of 10 year olds.*

I think Post segment 12 recoveries could safely be made a toggle option for different degrees of "grittiness" and speed of combat. Without them, character staying power drops unless they get breaks and, IME, time to safely take a recovery in combat is fairly rare.

*Not meant to be a slam just an anecdotal bit to explain my experience with it.

Edit: How has starting on Segment 12 slowed down combat?

[archermoo]

Edit: How has starting on Segment 12 slowed down combat?

I don't believe it is the case, but I think the POV of those that think it does is this:

If you start the combat on 12, anything done in 12 gets immediately wiped out by the Post Segment 12 Recovery, so you may as well have started out on 1.

I don't think the argument is valid, but that is my understanding of what it is. I welcome someone who agrees with it to provide clarification if needed.

[Xotl]

While I disagree. I like starting on 12 quite a bit. It is the only Phase that every Speed other than 1 goes on. And I very much like getting that Post-12 Recovery right off the bat.

As to it being intuitive, no part of any game is particularly intuitive. If they were you wouldn't need to write the rules down. It is easy to explain, easy to implement and at least in my opinion quite useful.

It would be just as easy to start at Segment 1 and state that everyone gets to go then, if you were really set on the concept of everyone going on the first Segment of a combat. Why would you want recovery right away though? I honestly would like to know. IMHO it just makes things take longer.

As for intuitiveness, I don't want to get too meta here, but some things are definitely intuitive. High = good, or Energy Blasts being blasts that contain energy. I define intuitive as saying that if you approach the average someone with practically no preconceptions on an issue, what will their idea be on how it works? If you ask a random person where something begins, at the beginning or at the end, what's he going to say? You say if something was intuitive you wouldn't need to write it down, but needing to explain the fine points and detail of something is not the opposite of a concept being easy to learn.


I don't believe it is the case, but I think the POV of those that think it does is this:

If you start the combat on 12, anything done in 12 gets immediately wiped out by the Post Segment 12 Recovery, so you may as well have started out on 1.

I don't think the argument is valid, but that is my understanding of what it is. I welcome someone who agrees with it to provide clarification if needed.

This is how I feel. Obviously you don't always have everything wiped out, but much of it usually is. The real point though is that regardless of how much is wiped out by recovery, why have any of it wiped out at all? Starting at Segment 12 guarantees that things take longer, and gains you literally nothing that I can see. Starting at Segment 1 dodges this. Honestly, what is the point of starting at 12? My turn to be confused. :)

[nexus]

I don't believe it is the case, but I think the POV of those that think it does is this:

If you start the combat on 12, anything done in 12 gets immediately wiped out by the Post Segment 12 Recovery, so you may as well have started out on 1.

I don't think the argument is valid, but that is my understanding of what it is. I welcome someone who agrees with it to provide clarification if needed.

Okay, that's a reasonable argument but I don't entirely agree. I've had many situations where what was done of segment 12 wasn't wiped out by the Post segment 12 recovery. Admittedly mostly in Heroic games where Rec wasn't through the roof for most characters.

[SuperPheemy]

Starting on 1 and "reversing" the Speed Chart would make learning the HERO Speed system <i>slightly</i> easier to learn. Having no immediate Post-12 recovery will shorten combats (specifically by the amount that gets replaced immediately by the combatant's REC)

By reversing the Speed Chart I'm suggesting that all Speed values get their initial phase on segment 1 and the remainder of their actions at equal intervals throughout the turn. So everyone *should* get at least one action every combat (provided that the low DEX characters aren't simply wiped-out before their initiative in the first phase).

There is enough difference that I can see <i>some</i> initial confusion (though not much), considering that most veteran HERO players already have the popular speeds between 3 and 7 memorized. For example, Speed 5 characters get Phases on 3,5,8,10, and 12. Speed 5 characters on a reversed chart would get Phases on 1,4,6,9,and 11.

Though for new players the idea of starting combat on Segment 1, Turn 1 is pretty logical.

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should the "Haymaker" be removed from the rules?

I think it should be. It is just a 20 point push that doesn't require the high end cost with a segment delay. Also, trying to coordinate segments to make it work is just an extra headache that I don't think the rules need.


I have to disagree there. Haymakers have been used many times, at dramatic moments, to do cool stuff. Yes, it's a 0-END "push", but sometimes, you need those.I'm with Mike on this one. The Haymaker is a staple of the system with great usefulness under many circumstances. It's also actually very different from a Push, with different drawbacks.
Wheras I've never had any problems getting people to understand it. It is another one of those things that until I first saw it mentioned here on the Hero boards it hadn't even occured to me that anyone might have a problem understanding it.Same here -- I've never seen a problem with it outside these boards. Perhaps using the Segment Zero method I've proposed could help....

[nexus]

Perhaps using the Segment Zero method I've proposed could help....

Segment 0... I like it. Seems simple, intuitive and maintains the usefulness of Segment 12 starts. Repped

[archermoo]

It would be just as easy to start at Segment 1 and state that everyone gets to go then, if you were really set on the concept of everyone going on the first Segment of a combat. Why would you want recovery right away though? I honestly would like to know. IMHO it just makes things take longer.

As for intuitiveness, I don't want to get too meta here, but some things are definitely intuitive. High = good, or Energy Blasts being blasts that contain energy. I define intuitive as saying that if you approach the average someone with practically no preconceptions on an issue, what will their idea be on how it works? If you ask a random person where something begins, at the beginning or at the end, what's he going to say? You say if something was intuitive you wouldn't need to write it down, but needing to explain the fine points and detail of something is not the opposite of a concept being easy to learn.

This is how I feel. Obviously you don't always have everything wiped out, but much of it usually is. The real point though is that regardless of how much is wiped out by recovery, why have any of it wiped out at all? Starting at Segment 12 guarantees that things take longer, and gains you literally nothing that I can see. Starting at Segment 1 dodges this. Honestly, what is the point of starting at 12? My turn to be confused. :)

For everyone to have a Phase in Segment 1 you would have to redo the Speed Chart, as currently it isn't the case.

As far as "intuitive" goes, that depends on the person. I certainly don't see "higher=better" as intuitive. Craps is one of the oldest games in existance. There is no consistent higher or lower that is "better", yet somehow people keep managing to learn it.

As far as what is gained by leaving the system where it is, I think that's an invalid question. More to the point, what is gained by changing it. I see literally no gain. Just a change for the sake of changing things.

The point of starting at 12 is, as I said, it is the Segment that everyone goes, with the sole exception of Speed 1 characters. The only way of doing it short of re-writing the Speed Chart, which I don't see any advanatage in doing. I like the idea that almost everyone gets 1 last chance to do something before they get a free Recovery, and I like the idea that almost everyone gets a chance to do something at the very beginning of a combat.

I personally like the idea of getting a Recovery right after everyone's first Phase. It gives you a chance to feel your opponents out and still get some of the resources you use back fairly quickly. But if you don't like it, a much simpler way of getting rid of the first Recovery is to just make a house rule and skip the first PS12 Recovery in a combat. That way you get the change you want without needing to rewrite the entire Speed Chart.

[CorPse]

But if you don't like it, a much simpler way of getting rid of the first Recovery is to just make a house rule and skip the first PS12 Recovery in a combat. That way you get the change you want without needing to rewrite the entire Speed Chart.

This sounds like a very reasonable fix for anyone that sees starting in 12 as a problem. Everyone gets to act, which is nice, and no one gets a Recovery, which seems to be the sticking point.

[Xotl]

As far as what is gained by leaving the system where it is, I think that's an invalid question. More to the point, what is gained by changing it. I see literally no gain. Just a change for the sake of changing things.

Well, I already explained what is gained: combats start when people expect them to (at the start of a turn), and are always shorter. I think those things are more valuable than getting to feel out your opponent, which is the only reason raised by anyone so far to keep things the way they are. The SPD chart change would simply be swapping the "1" and "12" columns, which really takes no effort at all. You could even get away with no SPD change at all if you're willing to drop the somewhat arbitrary notion that everyone *must* act at the start of a combat.

Aside from all this, your suggestion of abolishing the first recovery is a decent one (I'd rather get rid of post-Segment 12 recoveries all together, which makes recovery a tactical decision rather than an automatic grant that extends combats needlessly IMHO).

[archermoo]

Well, I already explained what is gained: combats start when people expect them to (at the start of a turn), and are always shorter. I think those things are more valuable than getting to feel out your opponent, which is the only reason raised by anyone so far to keep things the way they are. The SPD chart change would simply be swapping the "1" and "12" columns, which really takes no effort at all. You could even get away with no SPD change at all if you're willing to drop the somewhat arbitrary notion that everyone *must* act at the start of a combat.

Aside from all this, your suggestion of abolishing the first recovery is a decent one (I'd rather get rid of post-Segment 12 recoveries all together, which makes recovery a tactical decision rather than an automatic grant that extends combats needlessly IMHO).

And I've already explained what is lost by changing things. The fact that you find them as compelling as I find your reasons to change things doesn't mean that I didn't explain it already.

And you are certianly welcome to house rule PS12 recoveries out of the game. I just don't think that it has any place in the core rules.

[Balabanto]

I really like the combat system. I've spoken of it's perfection for many years, and I'm not sure that much needs to be changed.

You may want to take some time when writing the book to talk about SPD ranges. In general, my home game has a SPD range of 4-6, and Master Villains and Giant Monsters can run as high as 8, but that's really it. It's control of the action chart that makes this functional, and the problem is that "Too many actions for a single character" makes the game not fun for those who get those actions.

The issues really are the way martial artists and speedsters are designed and built, and really, I think a lot of this can be taken care of with alternate design methods. A Speedster should be about his movement, not about how many actions he gets in a turn. A lot of that can be covered with powers and/or maneuvers that are designed to show people how fast he is, and use special effect rather than numbercrunching to get what you want.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.

I'd put this one as a mighty "HELL NO!". The hero SPD system was, along with the Runequest/BRP strike rank system, a massive paradigm shift in game design for the day, and is one of the core elements of the system. More than any other thing it contributes. IMHO, to the ability to tweak the feel of the game to allow it to simulate any situation from life or fiction.



Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

I’m not convinced that this rule needs changing, but I’m at least willing to think about the issue. I think it might make more sense simply to drop in a sidebar explaining the rule and suggesting that you could ditch it in some games (primarily Heroic campaigns) if you want.

I'm good with including this as an optional rule, possibly even with a couple of pages of exposition. I could even see it being incorporated into the core rules, if it was VERY well chewed first to look for massive imbalances.



Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.
I'm Ok with it. Tradition only goes so far, and this isn't too far off how things get handled anyway once familiarity with the system is reached, for just the reason you mention... Not wanting to give out bad-guy DCV numbers.



Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.
I've given this one a lot of thought over the years, and am of a split mind on the topic. I dislike the averaging function of large die attacks, and feel that it really gimps Normal Attacks. My first inclination would be to shift to a model largely based on the Killing Attack mechanic, with the assumption that MOST attacks in the real world are designed to damage someone towards the goal of killing them. Normal Attacks would thus be a limitation across the board, much like the HA limit that now exists. This also decreases the value of the 'free' damage dice derived from STR.




Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Steve’s Thoughts: I definitely think they should. Over the past 25+ years, one exception or additional rule after another has been added on, with the end result being a complex mess. I don’t yet know exactly how I intend to change things, but change them I will. It may be as simple as getting rid of most of the exceptions and special rules and just trusting the GM not to let characters get ridiculously powerful attacks.

This is probably a good one to turn loose on the hordes of system tinkers to get some ideas. I agree that it should probably be streamlined. It's close to the number 1 new poster question here on the boards... "How does damage adding work anyway?"

[Markdoc]

I am finding myself agreeing with no Post-12 recoveries at all. This is one reason why.

I don't have a problem with post-12's: to me it reflects that fact that someone in very good shape (high REC) is going to tire more slowly than someone in poor condition (low REC). It also enables people to sustain a level of activity that isn't totally exhausting.

OTOH, starting combats at phase 1 makes very good sense and I've been doing it for some years now.

cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

Whether or not the SPD chart should be removed, my gut instinct is to say HELL NO, as the SPD chart is one of the reasons I like HERO overy most other game systems in RPGdom. I like the idea that you can make characters superfast and that HERO has a way of differentiating between characters of vastly different speeds. Most RPG's utterly fail at this while an elite few do "okay" with only 2 or 3 getting it right (one of which is HERO, I also consider Shadowrun to be superior for determining actions)

However, the one flaw with the SPD chart is its predictability. Any experienced HERO player and GM knows full well that a player can easily manipulate the SPD chart to their advantage, even when facing a slightly faster opponent. They know exactly which phases each specific SPD score goes and will adjust their tactics accordingly. Combat doesn't work that way, even (especially) in dramatic fiction and I think a system needs to be devised where the number of actions one gets in a turn is somehow randomized to avoid such SPD chart manipulation.

I have a suggestion for such a system. Get rid of the phases on the Speed Chart :eek: Just drop them. Each combat "Turn" consists of 12 seconds of time. The number of "Actions" or "Phases" you get in a full turn is equal to the characters Speed score. When the turn begins, the characters begin to go in order beginning from the highest DEX score (which could also be randomized if players prefer) each character taking 1 "Phase" before the next character in the sequence can go. Any character who is attacked can mount a defense (dodge, block, DFC etc) but doing so uses up one of their actions. Once all your actions in a turn are used up, you're done until the next turn.
Multiple defensive actions in a row should only take up 1 action...the bonus in question should remain active until the defending character takes their next action. For example:

Scion is a Speed 8 supersoldier. He's going up against 3 Speed 4 cybercommandos. He goes first (his Dex is 28 vs their Dex of 20) and half-moves up to one of the commandoes and side kicks him, doing knockback. The cybercommandos now get to go. The first one tries to punch Scion and Scion decides to Block. He has now used 2 actions. He rolls to block vs the 1st attack and succeeds. Cybercommando #2 kicks at Scion. Scion continues to Block...this doesn't use an action, its merely an extension of his 2cnd Action...but does so at -2 OCV. He Blocks the kick. Cybercommando #3 leaps forward (half-move) and attacks with a flying kick. Scion attempts to block this one as well (still Action #2, now at -4 OCV!) and fails, getting kicked in the face and knocked back 6 meters.
Scion has used 2 Actions and the Cybercommandoes have each used 1. Its Scion's turn again and he's not too happy that they've broken his new expensive sunglasses. He takes a few quick steps forward (Half-move) and does a leaping Splitz-kick ending in a mid-air thrust kick attempting to hit all three opponents! This is a sweep maneuver requiring a Full Phase Action (fortunately for Scion, he's got Rapid Attack, so he can still Half-move and Sweep!) Taking the hefty penalty to his OCV, Scion puts everything he's got into this maneuver (all skill levels to OCV). He hits cybercommando #1. commando 1 is going to try to Block (-1 Action) but fails! He's knocked out cold. He also hits cybercommando #2. Commando 2 is also going to try to Block (-1 Action) and succeeds, stopping the damage. Cybercommando #3 opts to Dodge (-1 Action, +3 DCV) while simultaneously using his Contortionist skill to increase DCV...and makes the skill roll. Cybercommando 3 bends backward almost to the breaking point, but Scions foot sails overhead, hitting naught but air.
Now the Cybercommandos get to go. They've used 2 Actions each and only have 2 Actions remaining. Scion has used 3 of 8 Actions and thus has 5 to spare. I think the commandos are in trouble....

more later...its late now, must sleep...

[James Gillen]

1. I agree that the rules for adding damage are insane. Please simplify them.

They're QUITE simple.

For instance: My Martial Artist character has 20 STR (4DCs). She has a Martial Arts Package including Offensive Strike (+4 DCs) and +4 Extra DCs in Martial Arts, for a max of 12d6 with the Offensive Strike maneuver. She also bought an "Advanced Martial Arts Techniques" Multipower made of Hand-to-Hand Attacks with Advantages, such as a slot with +4d6 HA with Armor Piercing Advantage.

The 5ER rules for adding Advantaged DCs to Martial Arts confirm that the Martial Arts bonus damage is added whole, without "prorating" for the AP Advantage. They also confirm that you can add the whole dice from STR to an Advantaged HA as long as the base points of HA before the Advantage at least equal STR, which in this case they do (+4d6 HA being 20 points Base, equal to 20 STR).

So I can add +4d6 AP HA to the 12d6 Offensive Strike and have the entire thing with Armor Piercing Advantage, for 16d6 AP, or effectively 24 DC attack.

I used this specific example with Steve on the 5th Edition FAQs and he confirmed that this IS legal, although he did say "most GMs would be leery" about letting a player use it.

So yeah, maybe it does need to be changed a bit....

JG

[Markdoc]

I don't believe it is the case, but I think the POV of those that think it does is this:

If you start the combat on 12, anything done in 12 gets immediately wiped out by the Post Segment 12 Recovery, so you may as well have started out on 1.

No, it's only partly that. Partly, it's the fact that it's counterintuitive. As you note, it's not that hard to understand, but when you teach new people the rules, it gets tiresome when they go "But that's dumb! If the round goes from one to twelve why start at 12?" I understand the reason: it's so almost everyone gets to act - but it's still counter-intuitive. And partly, it's simply that it's an added distraction - one more thing to do early in the combat that doesn't add anything.

It looks like Hero wants to attract new gamers, so streamlining the game is clearly a goal. To my mind, one way of streamlining - without losing anything - is to remove superfluous bits that make n00bs go "huh?"

This appeals to me, because over the years, I have assembled/played with many, many groups and found that the same things tend to pop up with new players all the time. The inverted to hit roll, the start on 12, the different ways of calculating damage vs DEF, how you add STR to weapons with STR min are all things that make n00bs stumble. None of them are hard per se, but they're different from other games or counterintuitive.

If I have to explain the same mechanic multiple times to people with university degrees, then it's a clear sign that the mechanism is not intuitive.

Edit: my approach is to start "out of combat time". If one group is lurking in ambush, they get their first action as a freebie (attacking with held actions while their foes are surprised/out of combat) - we then go to combat time, starting phase 1. If both sides have a chance to prepare - ie: they are expecting or approaching combat, they'll be moving at half-move, looking around, attacks at the ready - and everyone can start with a held action on phase 1 (think experienced soldiers checking out a potentially hostile area, or adventurers moving carefully through a potentially trapped/defended labyrinth). If it's a surprise: you go around the corner and walk smack into your opponent - then we go straight to phase 1. Obviously in this situation the people with the fastest reflexes (highest DEX/SPD) are likely to go first - which they do. Simple, intuitive and differentiates ambushes, random encounters and set piece encounters - with no need for extra rules at all.

cheers, Mark

[Alibear]

If we want to start everyone on one and have everyone go on one, whey not just reverse the speed chart?

Make Phase 1 Phase 12.
Make Phase 2 Phase 11.
...

Make 6, 7
make 7, 6
....
etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No. That's all I can say on this topic.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Steve’s Thoughts: Many people have raised the point that HERO’s rule that an Attack Action ends your Phase is a little artificial, and I don’t think that claim can be dismissed out of hand. I don’t know for sure, but I think it was instituted because the potential for powerful movement abilities in CHAMPIONS raised the spectre of characters who could attack, then move so far way they’d be effectively immune from counterattack. That’s a valid consideration, but is it one that should be cemented into the rules?

If not dropped officially, included as optional. So SpeedLad can attack, then run 50" away? Well, now he has to come back to attack again, doesn't he? Besides, he can do this anyway if he has 100" of running (which he needs for a 50" half move) and uses a move by. Allowing this would not be a big deal, in my opinion.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

I like this WAY better than "roll high", but then our group has done this for years. Another approach would be a chart that shows "You Rolled" 3 - 18; "You Hit" OCV =/- X. No math required - just look at the chart.

[Hugh Neilson]

Speaking of the "STUN Lotto" we've had great success with a flat x3 STUN with +1 STUN = x4 (and so on).

I dislike this because the KA now averages the same STUN as a normal attack, with more BOD and reduced defenses. And the volatility issue, while reduced, is not eliminated.

I'd rather change to the following:

- 1d6 KA costs 5 points
- add the total rolled and subtract 1/2 the dice = STUN
- count BOD as normal, but EITHER 1's count as 1 BOD OR 5's count as 2 BOD
- rDEF applies against BOD; all DEF against Stun if you have at least 1 rDEF
- subtract 3d6 from BOD for knockback

Similar averages to the present system, but no lotto - volatility is gone.

To the issue of extra cost for applying against rDEF, rDEF has become universal, so I say no unless some other changes are made, such as reducing the universality of rDEF (but I doubt that genie will go back in his bottle) or apply STUN and BOD against rDEF only.

[Hugh Neilson]

Steve has noted in the past that the "Attacked from Behind" in combat and out of combat were included in the list on p373 of 5ER for ease of people looking it up, and that it is part of the Surprised modifer explained on p380. Which, as I noted specifically notes that if you know someone is attacking you it doesn't matter if they are doing it from behind or not.

Remove "attacked from behind" from the maneuver chart. Mention sneaking up on an unaware target from behind in the Surprise Maneuver discussion.


Q: Should the "Haymaker" be removed from the rules?

I think it should be. It is just a 20 point push that doesn't require the high end cost with a segment delay. Also, trying to coordinate segments to make it work is just an extra headache that I don't think the rules need.

I like the all-out attack option. I dislike the logic disconnect of "you can't haymaker if lost DCV and extra time requirements would not be disadvantageous". If you're locked in a room, you have time to wind up that all-out attack to break down the door. So go ahead and do so.


Starting on 1 and "reversing" the Speed Chart would make learning the HERO Speed system <i>slightly</i> easier to learn. Having no immediate Post-12 recovery will shorten combats (specifically by the amount that gets replaced immediately by the combatant's REC)

By reversing the Speed Chart I'm suggesting that all Speed values get their initial phase on segment 1 and the remainder of their actions at equal intervals throughout the turn. So everyone *should* get at least one action every combat (provided that the low DEX characters aren't simply wiped-out before their initiative in the first phase).

Flipping the chart makes a lot of sense, actually. Yeah, SPD 1 still won't go at the start, but show me a SPD 1 PC. If surprised, the rule should either be no action on Ph 1 or you act after everyone who was not surprised.

Also, while I don't think they should replace the SPD chart, rules for random timing should be added. Two possibilities:

- roll d12 - if equal or lower than SPD, you go this phase. PS12 after 12 rounds. In low SPD games, use a d6 and have PS 12 every 6 rounds.

- get a deck of cards. Shuffle it. Draw one card at a time. Ace = phase 1. 2-10 are obvious. J = Ph 11; Q = ph 12; K = PS 12. When you run out of cards, reshuffle. Or use the #'s as SPD numbers, and remove all cards reflecting SPD not in your game (or in this combat).

[JakSpade]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

I think it should be combined with a turn-by-turn based option to tailor combat more to the feel of the genre. The GM may not feel that the speed chart will work well with heroic or lower powered games, so they might want an alternative. In heroic games, speed based powers might not be a major focus, so a turn-by-turn based combat may not alter the rules too much. :)


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

Wow, I never thought of that one. I always went with OCV + 11 - 3d6 = DCV. I suppose they're pretty much the same, but they feel different. I may have to start using that in my games. I'm all for that change. :D


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Hmmm... The main distinction between the two is "damage versus armor". Simulating really lethal attacks would just raise the damage dice, and cause more dice pool headaches... :D I don't know if there's a way to combine the two in such a way that would not throw the entire system on it's side, at least with BODY and STUN.

I do think that damage might need to be simplified a bit. My group always gripes about large dice attacks and counting up all the BODY and STUN.

I love the way BODY damage is calculated with normal damage. (0)1-2, (1)3-4, (2)5-6. Perhaps rolling dice just for BODY and then calculating a flat STUN multiplier to finish it up.

Or, perhaps rolling damage dice for STUN pips, and then calculating the amount of BODY damage done by dividing the total STUN by 5. So, for every 5 points of STUN you take, you take 1 BODY in damage. Might quicken the damage rolling a bit.

Jak

[Vondy]

I don't have a problem with post-12's: to me it reflects that fact that someone in very good shape (high REC) is going to tire more slowly than someone in poor condition (low REC). It also enables people to sustain a level of activity that isn't totally exhausting.

OTOH, starting combats at phase 1 makes very good sense and I've been doing it for some years now.

cheers, Mark

I would add to this that not all genres are modelled with an identical set of mechanics. Silver-age suerheroes, for instance, should get post-12 recoveries, as should cinematic action heroes. Whether or not its apropos for gritty games is really a matter of subjective preferences.

[archermoo]

No, it's only partly that. Partly, it's the fact that it's counterintuitive. As you note, it's not that hard to understand, but when you teach new people the rules, it gets tiresome when they go "But that's dumb! If the round goes from one to twelve why start at 12?" I understand the reason: it's so almost everyone gets to act - but it's still counter-intuitive. And partly, it's simply that it's an added distraction - one more thing to do early in the combat that doesn't add anything.

It looks like Hero wants to attract new gamers, so streamlining the game is clearly a goal. To my mind, one way of streamlining - without losing anything - is to remove superfluous bits that make n00bs go "huh?"

This appeals to me, because over the years, I have assembled/played with many, many groups and found that the same things tend to pop up with new players all the time. The inverted to hit roll, the start on 12, the different ways of calculating damage vs DEF, how you add STR to weapons with STR min are all things that make n00bs stumble. None of them are hard per se, but they're different from other games or counterintuitive.

If I have to explain the same mechanic multiple times to people with university degrees, then it's a clear sign that the mechanism is not intuitive.

Edit: my approach is to start "out of combat time". If one group is lurking in ambush, they get their first action as a freebie (attacking with held actions while their foes are surprised/out of combat) - we then go to combat time, starting phase 1. If both sides have a chance to prepare - ie: they are expecting or approaching combat, they'll be moving at half-move, looking around, attacks at the ready - and everyone can start with a held action on phase 1 (think experienced soldiers checking out a potentially hostile area, or adventurers moving carefully through a potentially trapped/defended labyrinth). If it's a surprise: you go around the corner and walk smack into your opponent - then we go straight to phase 1. Obviously in this situation the people with the fastest reflexes (highest DEX/SPD) are likely to go first - which they do. Simple, intuitive and differentiates ambushes, random encounters and set piece encounters - with no need for extra rules at all.

cheers, Mark

In 25+ years I've never had a newbie stumble on either starting on 12 or rolling low to hit. Not once. I don't know, maybe having it explained to them by someone who likes things the way they are makes a difference.

[archermoo]

Remove "attacked from behind" from the maneuver chart. Mention sneaking up on an unaware target from behind in the Surprise Maneuver discussion.


I'd say instead of removing "Attacked from behind" from the chart leave it in and just add a "See Surprised" instead of the modifiers. Sneaking up on an unaware target from behind is already discussed in the surprise section of the book, so there's no need to add it. Heck, it even already mentions that if you know someone is attacking you, even if you can't see them they still probably shouldn't get the Surprised modifiers. :)

[Markdoc]

In 25+ years I've never had a newbie stumble on either starting on 12 or rolling low to hit. Not once. I don't know, maybe having it explained to them by someone who likes things the way they are makes a difference.

Ah, but for many years, I did like the way things are. I only changed because it was a problem. I'm basically a lazy GM: I only change rules if they affect the game: I'm not into changes purely for æsthetics, even if I can appreciate the æsthetic argument.

cheers, Mark

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Personally, I'd lime more detail given to what facing means. How does one attack from behind? Move 3" and swing? What is meant by "from surprise"? If you're going to give people tactical options, then the book needs to explain what they are and when the GM should implement them.

Gotta agree. If an opponent is in front of me and then moves behind me....should he really get a bonus for striking me in the back? Afterall, I'm aware of his presence. Yeah, those types of modifiers need more detail as to the circumstances in which they are to be used.

Rob

[megaplayboy]

Suggestion on "granularity" of damage:
1. permit 1 pip, 1/2d-1, 1/2d, 1/2d+1, 1d-1, 1d scaling in heroic games
2. in superheroic games, the first 10 DCs are essentially linear damage, and then everything scales exponentially after that. In semi-realistic heroic games, maybe the first 20-30 DCs are linear, and exponential after that. In "realistic" games, perhaps the linearity extends up to 40 or 50 DCs. So, in a "superheroic setting", a 500 pound bomb does maybe 20 DCs of damage(survivable by most starting PCs), in a "semi-realistic heroic setting", maybe it does 30 DCs(barely survivable by the toughest PC or Villain diving for cover), and in a "realistic setting", it does 50 DCs (not at all survivable).
3. DO NOT, ever again, release a product that says the core of the sun does 975 d6 KA, 8x Penetrating, 16x Armor-Piercing damage per second. I gagged when I read that, because it was patently ludicrous. Nothing in any part of the Hero Universe has defenses anywhere close to this, and even the damage threshhold for vaping a planet is "only" around 50d6 KA. A Questonite sphere weighing as much as Jupiter and compressed into a dense one hex object would still be instantly vaped, even though it could placidly withstand the entire Antimatter missile arsenal of the Terran Empire being exploded point blank next to it.

But I digress.:ugly:

4. The damage/defense scaling for military weapons should not punish the superhero genre. Simply put, the super brick should outshine the main battle tank. The cosmic brick should shrug off the photon torpedo and fly through the space cruiser hull like it's tissue paper.

Because it's the way the genre's supposed to work, gosh darn it. Heroes are better than the hardware they face.

[JmOz]

1) Speed chart, Keep it for the love of pete, it defines Hero for to many of us to throw it out, but give some alternatives as well. However I would like one minor change, see speed 1 over in the corner, being shuned by the other speeds, you know why, because it does not go on phase 12, that's why. There is no logical reason I have ever seen for speed 1 not to be phase 12 instead of phase 7, furthermore if the goal is to stream line things you can't tell me that this does not do so. It costs little in grief for oldtimers, and makes alot of sense for new people.

2) This is something from one of the unofficial threads, with my spin on it, INT should be made into the Mental Dex, what I mean by that is that INT determines ECV. Furthermore INT can be used as Inititive, this may require repricing INT

[archermoo]

Gotta agree. If an opponent is in front of me and then moves behind me....should he really get a bonus for striking me in the back? Afterall, I'm aware of his presence. Yeah, those types of modifiers need more detail as to the circumstances in which they are to be used.

Rob

Which is pretty much what the text in 5ER says. Steve stated in the FAQ that he should have changed "Attack from behind" to "Attack from behind (Surprise)" in the chart to make it more clear what he was doing. I'm sure that is something that he'll make sure gets made more clear in 6th.

[archermoo]

Ah, but for many years, I did like the way things are. I only changed because it was a problem. I'm basically a lazy GM: I only change rules if they affect the game: I'm not into changes purely for æsthetics, even if I can appreciate the æsthetic argument.

cheers, Mark

Cool. I'm just not convinced that because some groups of people find it easier that the default should be changed. I have no problems with it being noted as an alternative in the rules, I just don't see any reason that it should be made the only system, or even the default one.

[Diamond_J]

...at the risk of getting flamed for 'heresy' here, something like the FUZION (yes, I said the forbidden word ;)) 'Kills' system might be needed for Supers..

One of the 2 things I like from the fuzion system was the kills mechanic. This seems to be the only way to make characters like Guyver or Technoman. If you're not familiar with them allow me to explaine.

Both Guyver and Technoman each posses a special "massive damage" attack that seems to be more effective in certain circomstanses, mostly when used against larger or more defensable targets (like kills).

The secound thing I liked about fuzion was the way advantages and dissadvantages were handled. My gaming group has a difficult time working with the fraction system (+1/4, +1/2, -1... etcetera). The way fuzion's dissadvantages worked you'd simply add dice for dissadvantages and subtract for advantages. This requires much less work when making characters. Basically the less you need a calculator for 6th edition the better IMO.

[Susano]

I wonder if we can get Steve to include (as an option) the house rule of "take 20 STUN [from any source] after your Defenses and take a BODY." It's worked to great effect in some local games.

[CorPse]

I wonder if we can get Steve to include (as an option) the house rule of "take 20 STUN [from any source] after your Defenses and take a BODY." It's worked to great effect in some local games.

Sounds interesting.

Is it 1 BODY per 20 STUN after defenses, or 1 BODY for taking 20 STUN or more after defenses?

[Susano]

Sounds interesting.

Is it 1 BODY per 20 STUN after defenses, or 1 BODY for taking 20 STUN or more after defenses?

Per 20 STUN after defenses. And that can be from an NND, EGO Attack, EB, and so on. In some combats, it was the only BODY people took, but it helped pushed things from the superheroic into the gritty, which was the intent. And yes, my PC was hit so hard by one attack she took something like 54 STUN after her defenses, which meant she took 2 BODY on top of everything that happened to her.

[CorPse]

I like it.

I might steal this for my UNTIL game. It's not as gritty as a Dark Champs game, but I want it to play more gritty than Champs. This is a nice compromise.

[Susano]

I like it.

I might steal this for my UNTIL game. It's not as gritty as a Dark Champs game, but I want it to play more gritty than Champs. This is a nice compromise.

We were playing Shadows Angelus, an anime-based game of "super-cops" versus the supernatural. It fit really well, as it resulted in PCs getting bloodied instead of just shrugging stuff off. I first saw it here... I think Killer Shrike created it.

[eternal_sage]

on the question of SPD charts and what not, a viable alternative (although it would be a big rewrite) would be to do something that Scion or Exalted (2nd Ed), both published by White Wolf do. in those games, they do not even have the concepts of turns or phases. instead, each action has a Speed value (move, attack, dodge, etc) that determines when a character can go next. this value is often modified by weapons, etc.

so in a HERO rework you could have a "Strike" action that takes 5 phases, a "Haymaker" that takes 7 phases, a "FMove" that takes 4 phases, a "HMove" that takes 2 Phases, etc. now, weapons could get modifiers like "Rapier, Speed -2" which would make a rapier strike take 3 phases, while a "Greatsword, Speed +2" would take 7 phases.

add to this the ability for martial maneuvers to modify speed values as well, and things get nutty (but cool) in that a "Fast Strike" could reduce a Speed value by 2, while an "Offensive Strike" could raise it by 2, and then you get a Rapier strike with Speed of 1 or 5 (respectively) or a Greatsword strike with 5 or 9 (respectively), in addition to all the normal extra bits that maneuvers give you.

this to me feels much more realistic (although that is stated as not neccessarily being the point, mind) and also avoids several other pitfalls involved in the old system that people have mentioned. is it simpler...my gut reaction is its about the same, erring towards more complicated, but i've used a similar system before, so my vote may not count.

otherwise, i'd leave the system as it stands (SPD-wise) or invert the chart (although i just now realized combats were supposed to start on 12... :P i've been starting at 1 without everyone getting to go once this whole time. i'm also all for moving poor little SPD 1 to a 12th phase action, because i don't personally see the point, otherwise.

[Blue]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed? Speed chart is fine
Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action? Been doing this for a long time. Seems to me it's not much different from people with move throughs

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented? No.

Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated? I understand people's complaints about the "killing damage lottery", and I just disagree. Sometimes a swing is nasty and sometimes it's harmless, and thats the way I like it.

Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined? Not sure I understand the question. Adding damage? As in, additional dice for various things like martial blows, high speed movement, etc? If that's the case I'll have to give this some thought too.

[caris]

Multiple Power Attacks - Was the best way to justify the cost savings of Multipowers and resolving the perception issue related to Link? Which are really the only two reasons I see for making MPAs part of the core rules in the first place. Granted it takes the Attack Multipower with a Defensive/Movement EC into a tweaked position where one major attack is put in the EC. It does create an issues when the player takes advantage of one of the ways to get a second attack power that can be used in an MPA (e.g. Getting a second gun for for +5 points via equipment doubling, or picking up a second Martial Art Manuever). It tends to make what are already very desirable design methods even more so, by being a major benefit in addition to already being a discounted way of doing things.

[archermoo]

Multiple Power Attacks - Was the best way to justify the cost savings of Multipowers and resolving the perception issue related to Link? Which are really the only two reasons I see for making MPAs part of the core rules in the first place. Granted it takes the Attack Multipower with a Defensive/Movement EC into a tweaked position where one major attack is put in the EC. It does create an issues when the player takes advantage of one of the ways to get a second attack power that can be used in an MPA (e.g. Getting a second gun for for +5 points via equipment doubling, or picking up a second Martial Art Manuever). It tends to make what are already very desirable design methods even more so, by being a major benefit in addition to already being a discounted way of doing things.

I know that the original designers of the game certainly played that you could make an attack using more than one power as long as those powers could be turned on at the same time (i.e. not in the same MP that didn't have enough Pool Points to run them both, had enough END to power them up, etc). I certainly always assumed that you could, though only rarely did so.

My understanding is that 5th edition added rules for Multiple Power Attacks not to introduce them, but to put limitations on them. There certainly wasn't anything in previous versions to forbid it, and a number of things that indicated at least to me that they were allowed. Things like talking about activating powers separately from making an attack roll, a limitation that caused a power to only be usable with another power implying that normally using powers together wasn't limited, etc.

That being said, I've never really liked the 5 points to double equipment rule myself. :)

[Opal]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?No. You want 'dramatic realism,' keep the SPD Chart. No other initiative system before or sense has matched it's ability to capture the kinds of things that happen in dramatic combats, while keeping everything consistent, and all the decisions in the hands of the players.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?No, absolutely not. The phase-terminating action is key to making the SPD chart work. Without it, high-SPD characters could dominate by attacking, then switching to active defenses. The issue of attacking-and-running-away is not nearly such a problem - and move-by already allows it, anyway.



Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?
As long as it stays the same - OCV vs DCV, 3d6 roll low - describe it as many diferent ways as you think will help get the idea across. I subtract what I roll from 11 and add it to my OCV, then call out what DCV I hit.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?No. The Killing dice mechanic is actually pretty good, in that it nicely models the unpredictable nature of RL attacks like firearms. The only problem with it is the 'STN lotto' effect, which puts the 'bullet proof' super-hero achetype entirely out of reach.



Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?
They should be consistent. If you're adding 3 DCs to 8 DCs, you should get 11 DCs or less, not 15. If you're adding normal damage to some other type, it should only up to double the speciality attack it's enhancing - because, in effect, the normal damage is being 'transformed' into the more specialized type.

Key to doing this, IMHO, would be differentiating between advantages that make attacks hit 'harder' - AP, + STNx, NND, AVLD, BOECV - and those that just make them more 'available,' like Reduced END. I guess one way of doing it would simply be to say if an advantage costs END, it has to be pro-rated when stacking with another attack that doesn't have the advantage.

So, if you smack someone with an AP, 0 END, Concussite Mace, you pro-rate your STR for the AP, but not the 0 END (and you pay END for the STR, of course). If you make a Storm-style "Hail Stones Attack" (4d HA, Autofire), you don't pro-rate your STR for Autofire, but you pay END on it for each 'shot' you fire.

[rjcurrie]

We've discussed inverting the SPD chart so that everyone goes in segment 1 and thus, allowing a more logical start to combat on segment 1 rather than segment 12.

Right now, characters with the exception of SPD 1, SPDs that are factors of 12 (2,3,4, 6, and 12) get their phases on segments in a pretty intuitive manner.

SPD 2 goes on 6 and 12
SPD 3 goes on 4, 8, and 12
SPD 4 goes on 3, 6, 9, and 12
SPD 6 goes on 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12
SPD 12 goes on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12

If we invert the chart, we lose a bit of that:

SPD 2 goes on 1 and 7
SPD 3 goes on 1, 5, and 9
SPD 4 goes on 1, 4, 7, and 10
SPD 6 goes on 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11
SPD 12 goes on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

and to me, this feels a little off.

So, let's leave the SPD chart alone excepting for moving SPD 1's lone action from segment 7 to segment 12. Let's add a special Segment 0 that takes please before the first turn of combat. Segment 0 behaves just like a segment 12 except it is not followed by a recovery; action simply conitinues into segment 1.

[archermoo]

We've discussed inverting the SPD chart so that everyone goes in segment 1 and thus, allowing a more logical start to combat on segment 1 rather than segment 12.

Right now, characters with the exception of SPD 1, SPDs that are factors of 12 (2,3,4, 6, and 12) get their phases on segments in a pretty intuitive manner.

SPD 2 goes on 6 and 12
SPD 3 goes on 4, 8, and 12
SPD 4 goes on 3, 6, 9, and 12
SPD 6 goes on 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12
SPD 12 goes on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12

If we invert the chart, we lose a bit of that:

SPD 2 goes on 1 and 7
SPD 3 goes on 1, 5, and 9
SPD 4 goes on 1, 4, 7, and 10
SPD 6 goes on 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11
SPD 12 goes on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

and to me, this feels a little off.

So, let's leave the SPD chart alone excepting for moving SPD 1's lone action from segment 7 to segment 12. Let's add a special Segment 0 that takes please before the first turn of combat. Segment 0 behaves just like a segment 12 except it is not followed by a recovery; action simply conitinues into segment 1.

I personally like SPD 1 going on a different Phase from everyone else, but I wouldn't be heartbroken over it. I think the Segment 0 thing for starting combat would be a worthwhile thing to have as a optional rule, but that the default should stay for a start on Segment 12.

[caris]

My understanding is that 5th edition added rules for Multiple Power Attacks not to introduce them, but to put limitations on them. There certainly wasn't anything in previous versions to forbid it, and a number of things that indicated at least to me that they were allowed. Things like talking about activating powers separately from making an attack roll, a limitation that caused a power to only be usable with another power implying that normally using powers together wasn't limited, etc.

Once MPA came out, I could see where one could have inferred from the rules that something like MPA's were possible. I know that I am not the only person to infer from the rules the exact opposite that only one attack could be made at a time, and that attack had to be made by a single "power" (in some cases that being a single Power, or a Compound Power Build of some sort).

It does not change the fact that it was in 5th where MPAs were explicity put into the rules and the rules were laid out on how to do them.

Oh, yeah, I'm not a clairevoyant or a mind reader (I'm a medium and I don't think any of the original designers are dead yet), so I can only go off of what the designers actually put down on paper as to their intent, not psychically determine things they decided to leave out.

[Thia Halmades]

I'm still leery on removing the Post Segment 12 recovery. I'm not sold on it one way or another. I do think that "everyone going on 12" should be fixed so that is the phase in which everyone can act, and then go up from there (as Rod suggests).

[archermoo]

Once MPA came out, I could see where one could have inferred from the rules that something like MPA's were possible. I know that I am not the only person to infer from the rules the exact opposite that only one attack could be made at a time, and that attack had to be made by a single "power" (in some cases that being a single Power, or a Compound Power Build of some sort).

It does not change the fact that it was in 5th where MPAs were explicity put into the rules and the rules were laid out on how to do them.

Oh, yeah, I'm not a clairevoyant or a mind reader (I'm a medium and I don't think any of the original designers are dead yet), so I can only go off of what the designers actually put down on paper as to their intent, not psychically determine things they decided to leave out.

Nope, they certainly aren't dead. And I don't think it was so much a decision to leave it out. I think it was more that it didn't occur to them that it needed to be explicitly spelled out. My understanding is that they were surprised when they found out that most people never used more than one power in a single attack.

But yes, you are correct: 5th edition is where rules specifically spelling out what could and could not be done with multiple powers in an attack first appeared.

[caris]

Nope, they certainly aren't dead. And I don't think it was so much a decision to leave it out. I think it was more that it didn't occur to them that it needed to be explicitly spelled out. My understanding is that they were surprised when they found out that most people never used more than one power in a single attack.

But yes, you are correct: 5th edition is where rules specifically spelling out what could and could not be done with multiple powers in an attack first appeared.

Which still takes me back to is the version of MPA that was put into 5th really the best way to handle the situation? If nothing else, I'd like to see some sort of suggested capping on total Damage Classes related to the campaign maximum.

[Chris Goodwin]

So, let's leave the SPD chart alone excepting for moving SPD 1's lone action from segment 7 to segment 12.

Y'know, thinking on it, I think SPD 1 should stay in 7.

Because SPD 1 is slow. Dog slow. As in, never seen a character, player or non, with SPD 1. I can certainly see, if a character has SPD 1 he's so slow that he just stands around puttering when the action starts.

[CorPse]

Which still takes me back to is the version of MPA that was put into 5th really the best way to handle the situation? If nothing else, I'd like to see some sort of suggested capping on total Damage Classes related to the campaign maximum.

Hmmm... what do people think about MPAs in general?

Sometimes I worry that it's just a little to powerful in general... even considering the offsets. Most of the time it makes sense to pull an MPA whenever possible if your attack(s) meet the conditions required.

[Vondy]

Hmmm... what do people think about MPAs in general?

Sometimes I worry that it's just a little to powerful in general... even considering the offsets. Most of the time it makes sense to pull an MPA whenever possible if your attack(s) meet the conditions required.

It doesn't bother me. The endurance cost is usually restrictive enough. And, frankly, I've seldom seen anyone make one even when they were told the rule was on the table.

[archermoo]

Which still takes me back to is the version of MPA that was put into 5th really the best way to handle the situation? If nothing else, I'd like to see some sort of suggested capping on total Damage Classes related to the campaign maximum.

Well, it put more restrictions on them than previous versions did. ;)

As to whether or not they were enough, I and the people I play with use them so little I'm probably not the best person to ask. :)

[Susano]

Add me to the "barely see them used" camp.

[caris]

Well, it put more restrictions on them than previous versions did. ;)

As to whether or not they were enough, I and the people I play with use them so little I'm probably not the best person to ask. :)

Well, much the same with me. The only time I've seen it used was in another game, where I thought I had brought in a high end powered character, until I saw what using MPAs did for the "averaged" powered character. (Gee, pay more points, but get the equivalent of a Reduced Penetrating Attack at twice campaign average Damage with each half getting different Advantages. Fun!)

Now to the first point, it also made the interpretation of them existing as "official" in the sense that I accept the concept for an RPG. Before that they were just one interpretation of the rules as written. (Granted, it was the intended interpretation, but see my thoughts on assumptions of psychic abilities above.)

[caris]

Add me to the "barely see them used" camp.

I see, so do we need to include any column inches on topic if it turns out most people don't actually use the rule? Can we justify dropping the explicit presence in the rule on the grounds that it doesn't provide enough added value to justify the added length to the rules?

[nexus]

I like it.

I might steal this for my UNTIL game. It's not as gritty as a Dark Champs game, but I want it to play more gritty than Champs. This is a nice compromise.

It's cool that you can ratchet the body threshold up and down for different levels of lethality. .

[nexus]

Per 20 STUN after defenses. And that can be from an NND, EGO Attack, EB, and so on. In some combats, it was the only BODY people took, but it helped pushed things from the superheroic into the gritty, which was the intent. And yes, my PC was hit so hard by one attack she took something like 54 STUN after her defenses, which meant she took 2 BODY on top of everything that happened to her.

Would Damage Reduction apply to this damage?

[Susano]

Would Damage Reduction apply to this damage?

Nope. This BODY damage occurs after everything else had been figured in. One thing -- it does allow for 60 STR 30 PD Bricks to actually hurt each other in a fight.

[Opal]

Hmmm... what do people think about MPAs in general?It's kinda funny: I always thought Linked strongly implied them, and officially recongizing them would be a fantastic change. But, really, it turns out it just a lot, lot more efficient to buy one bigger attack than to launch two different ones at the same time - and to launch 'em both at the same time, you have to buy them both outside of a multipower.

As with many changes, getting them was less exciting than adjitating for them.

::shrug::

[nexus]

Nope. This BODY damage occurs after everything else had been figured in. One thing -- it does allow for 60 STR 30 PD Bricks to actually hurt each other in a fight.

I think Fuzion had something similar?

[Susano]

I think Fuzion had something similar?

Yes, for every X "STUN" you took, you took 1 "BODY."

[ajackson]

Though Fuzion scaled stun and body differently (both stun and hits were equal to Bod*5), so it's not quite equivalent. Also, Fuzion didn't have separate calculation of body pips vs stun pips. Against a killing attack, you just took (damage-defense) points of both stun and hits. Against a normal attack, you took (damage-defense) stun and (damage-defense)/5 hits.

It was not a terrible system. Fuzion had its share of good ideas, it just also had its share of really bad ideas.

[nexus]

Yes, for every X "STUN" you took, you took 1 "BODY."

Thanks. I don't mean to imply it's a bad idea. I think it's applicable for several genres I was just wondering why it sounded familiar.

[Hugh Neilson]

Hmmm... what do people think about MPAs in general?

Sometimes I worry that it's just a little to powerful in general... even considering the offsets. Most of the time it makes sense to pull an MPA whenever possible if your attack(s) meet the conditions required.

I worry about it being powerful, but have not seen it abused. A GM shouod certainly be alert to possible abuse.

I think the Framework rules should be revised. I would suggest:

- in an EC, powers can be MPA'd. They can be used at the same time for all other purposes, and that's why they cost more than multipowers.

- in a Multipower, if you have enough AP's for multiple attack powers, you should be able to MPA. Nothing wrong with a MP with a 4d6 AVLD and 10d6 Flash being able to mix & match. You had to buy flexible instead of fixed slots.

- in a VPP, the powers used together in an MPA should be capped at a total AP equal to the pool (just like a MP's total AP will be capped by virtue of the Multipower mechanics).

[CorPse]

I worry about it being powerful, but have not seen it abused. A GM shouod certainly be alert to possible abuse.

I think the Framework rules should be revised. I would suggest:

- in an EC, powers can be MPA'd. They can be used at the same time for all other purposes, and that's why they cost more than multipowers.

- in a Multipower, if you have enough AP's for multiple attack powers, you should be able to MPA. Nothing wrong with a MP with a 4d6 AVLD and 10d6 Flash being able to mix & match. You had to buy flexible instead of fixed slots.

- in a VPP, the powers used together in an MPA should be capped at a total AP equal to the pool (just like a MP's total AP will be capped by virtue of the Multipower mechanics).

Very reasonable.

Sometimes I worry that my players would use MPAs all the freakin' time if they thought about it... and, then, well I'd have to respond as a GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

Very reasonable.

Sometimes I worry that my players would use MPAs all the freakin' time if they thought about it... and, then, well I'd have to respond as a GM.

The "sauce for the goose" argument works well, I find. If these are to be commonplace for PC's they will be commonplace for opponents. If they are to be rare, they will be rare for both sides.

Ultimately, access to MPA's costs the point savings of a "ultra only" multipower.

[CorPse]

The "sauce for the goose" argument works well, I find. If these are to be commonplace for PC's they will be commonplace for opponents. If they are to be rare, they will be rare for both sides.

Ultimately, access to MPA's costs the point savings of a "ultra only" multipower.

Yes, that's a great technique.

How many times have I said, "You can do that, but then I get to do that, too."

[megaplayboy]

Actually, if you wanted something very close to invulnerability, you could have a +1 or +2 advantage on Damage Reduction, "Applies before other defenses". Would effectively increase existing defenses by 33%, 100%, and 300% respectively.

Of course, munchkins would swoon, and purists would reach for the Pepto...;)

edit: perhaps this belongs in a "powers" discussion thread...

[Silbeg]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?


I vote a definite "No!!!"
On of the distinctive qualities of the HERO system is the speed chart. The supposed complexity is not as bad as many people would make it seem...




Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

Interesting idea... and one that most likely comes up due to the way D20 does it. However, having an attack end your phase does tend to be a tactical limiter... and perhaps a bit counter-intuitive.

Guess I would have to see things play-tested more to really get a good feel on whether or not I would have this changed. Of course, you could have this listed as an optional rule, in any case, so really doesn't matter that much!




Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. Expressing it more like a Skill Roll (11+ OCV = your “Skill”; the amount you make the roll by indicates the DCV you hit) is more consistent, probably easier for newcomers to learn, and doesn’t require the GM to do any work or reveal a target’s DCV if he doesn’t want to.

Absolutely! This is just a semantic issue, but really is much easier to understand this way. Granted, I didn't come across this until after 20+ years of HERO gaming, and am still "retraining" by brain to think this way, but it is a very good way of describing the to-hit roll.



Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

If I were to do anything about this, I would eliminate Killing damage altogether. No advantages to make an attack "Killing", just keep all damage on the same system.

Now, where this might not work out well is in "grittier" games, where you expect a lot of killing to happen. But for "cinematic" games, I don't see a problem with not having killing attacks.

[Silbeg]

The way I've pretty much always described attack rolls to people: Roll 3d6. If you roll 11, you hit a DCV equal to your OCV. For every 1 you roll under 11, add 1 to your OCV to determine what DCV you hit. For every 1 you roll over 11 subtract 1 from your OCV to determine what DCV you hit.

In all honesty, this is how I internalize the math 90% of the time. The "delta from 11" math is the simplest way for me to think about it... but is not always the simplest for all people to grok.

The mechanic is the same, so I would agree with Steve that the easiest way to explain to a novice is 11+OCV-3d6 = DCV hit ...

If there is room (such as sidebars) additional ways to calculate can be described (including the traditional 11+OCV-DCV = target on 3d6_

[Thia Halmades]

Thing I keep saying and mean to post, and did not see yet, but i'm not sure where it falls:

I want to see 6th Edition rebalance damage and defenses and "declare" a canon edition of what things OUGHT to be, so that when Grond wants to heave a Tank, Grond can, and if Grond is supposed to be 110mm Proof, then the build of Grond and the build of the tank now agree; the tank shell won't hurt him. Perhaps this needs to be a limitation, or a new Power on Grond, I'm not sure. But I would like to see an apples-to-apples balance of damage and defense and have it be the official version. I don't like it? I can change it! But I want to see those numbers and have them be consistent throughout the entire CU/HERO system. So that's a huge, huge thing for me, personally, because right now I still feel like i'm guessing every time I pick it up.

[Thia Halmades]

Actually, if you wanted something very close to invulnerability, you could have a +1 or +2 advantage on Damage Reduction, "Applies before other defenses". Would effectively increase existing defenses by 33%, 100%, and 300% respectively.

Of course, munchkins would swoon, and purists would reach for the Pepto...;)

edit: perhaps this belongs in a "powers" discussion thread...

Yeah, I already thought of this.

DR 75%, applies before all other Defenses (+2).
Armor, 10/10.

Congrats. Whatever you DR'd yourself against? You're now bloody invulnerable.

[Silbeg]

Hi Folks: Simple idea...

Suggestion = If you perform a half move before attacking you get -1 on your OCV.

Reasoning = This is intuitive and makes sense to me. I have always used this rule and was surprised to see it go away. Bring it back.

Yeah, that brings back funny memories. Was 4E that it went away, or 5E? I believe the former... but it took us 12 years to realize it!

Thanks Susano for the clarification:



4E dropped it.

[Susano]

4E dropped it.

[Silbeg]

The way I tend to go is:

If neither side is Surprised and everyone knows a battle's about to take place, everyone starts on Segment 0.
If one side is Surprised but the other isn't (like an ambush), then the surprisers start on Segment 0.
If it's an "accidental encounter" (like meeting a Wandering Monster in a dungeon), then skip Segment 0.
There are variations, such as if there's a tense moment and some idiot fires off a shot that throws things into battle, but them's the basics.


That is an interesting way of doing it.

My beef with the combat starting in Seg12 is that it causes a lot of metagaming...

"I hold until Seg1 so that my target doesn't get a recovery from my damage" yadda yadda yadda

Doing this as a Seg0 - which is a "use it or lose it" segment would seem to be a good idea to me. I'd say you could still hold your phase until the end of the end of the segment, but if at that time you don't use it... sorry. :nya:

[Silbeg]

Hmmm... what do people think about MPAs in general?

Sometimes I worry that it's just a little to powerful in general... even considering the offsets. Most of the time it makes sense to pull an MPA whenever possible if your attack(s) meet the conditions required.

I have to pretty much agree with Von D-Man - the END costs tend to be the biggest limiter. I have seen a couple of characters designed to use them, both in current and in past editions. My current character, Soundwave (http://www.silbeg.com/FPCA/northForce2/Soundwave.pdf) often throws around a carrier attack, usually a Flash (ok, so his Flash is Hearing based, and often doesn't work that well... but...).

I remember when I first read about MPAs in 5E... Power Crusher (from whatever book he was from) finally made sense!! A brick that can drain/transfer AS he does damage! That's a lot nastier than a brick that first has to transfer, then hit.

Now, I have not yet seen this really abused, yet. Also, if you are using hard AP caps in your campaign, I can see where these may be a little hard to analyze with MPAs. However, I don't like hard caps (especially because they make things like AE impossible to use effectively unless they are really exotic). On the other hand, if a character had two separate 12d6 EBs that he could use simultaneously, I would start getting leary.

Let's assume that this campaign has an average DEF 25. These attacks would each do 17STUN on average. So, if they both hit, they do an average of 34 STUN per attack.

Reasoning backwards, this is as effective as an attack that does 59 STUN per single attack (about 18d6). Now, if an 18d6 attack is pretty normal in your campaign (assuming the same defenses), this MPA shouldn't raise any red flags. However, if you have a hard cap of 14d6, then you should probably disallow the MPA with 2X 12d6 attacks.

Let's reason the other way... if your cap of 14d6 does an average of 49 STUN per attack, it will do an average of 24 STUN after defenses. This means that 2 attacks should only average 12 STUN per, which means that an 10.5d6 attack would probably OK, but 11d6 would be too effective.

This analysis does get more complex when more exotic powers are used, but I think that a well adjudicated game should not worry about MPAs...

Now, the only change to the rules I would probably want to introduce is to remove the restriction on MPAs within a single MP... if you have the reserve points to fire, go ahead! In an EC, the Powers MPA'd would need to be in a single slot, and in a VPP the active cost of the power cannot exceed the reserve.

[SCUBA Hero]

Move after attacking: Why not? I haven't seen a case for this being unbalancing, as long as the character can't attack during his move (which you can already do via a Move-Through anyway).

Losing Held Actions at the beginning of a Segment (FReD, p. 361) - I never understood how this could be abused, and immediately see how it can be taken advantage of - why should a character lose their chance to act? I admit I could be wrong - but make the case against it.

And a general note: TRIPLE-CHECK THE COMBAT EXAMPLE AND RUN IT BY FOLKS WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH HOW THE SYSTEM IS "SUPPOSED" TO WORK!!!

[nexus]

Nope. This BODY damage occurs after everything else had been figured in. One thing -- it does allow for 60 STR 30 PD Bricks to actually hurt each other in a fight.\

One more question. Can attacks like NNDs, Ego Attack, Stun Drains, etc that don't do Body at all still cause this additional damage?

[Susano]

\

One more question. Can attacks like NNDs, Ego Attack, Stun Drains, etc that don't do Body at all still cause this additional damage?

AFAIK, yes. Well, maybe not a STUN Drain. RDUNeil come up with the idea.

[nexus]

AFAIK, yes. Well, maybe not a STUN Drain. RDUNeil come up with the idea.

Thank you

I think the idea is more "realistic" in some cases. It's difficult to knock someone out without doing some lingering physical damage and it makes CAK more meaningful. A 50 Strength character can't just wail away on Agents confident that barring a an extreme roll their 12 PD/Armor combination will prevent him from killing them.

OTOH, Stun is an abstraction just like almost everything else in Hero so it seems there should be a way to do something like Knock out Gas or an Ecstasy Weapon that isn't a little lethal. I think I'd allow and Advantage Does No Body (+0 to +1/4) if I were to employ that rules in a campaign.

[rjcurrie]

Move after attacking: Why not? I haven't seen a case for this being unbalancing, as long as the character can't attack during his move (which you can already do via a Move-Through anyway).

Perhaps it was a desire to see toe-to-toe battles rather than "Character A hits Character B then moves away. Character B chases down Character A and hits him. Character A hits Character B then moves away. And so on.".


Losing Held Actions at the beginning of a Segment (FReD, p. 361) - I never understood how this could be abused, and immediately see how it can be taken advantage of - why should a character lose their chance to act? I admit I could be wrong - but make the case against it.

It prevents a charater from acting twice in a segment.

It could probably be modified so that if you continue to hold it past the start of that segment, you automatically lose the next action. For example, Fred is SPD 5 and holds his action in Segment 3. When segment 5 rolls around, Fred can either lose his held action or he can lose his segment 5 action. Or I guess, instead of losing the segment 5 action, it could be made a held action that could not be taken before segment 6.

Or maybe you can let the charater act twice in the same segment. But that might open up its own can of worms.


And a general note: TRIPLE-CHECK THE COMBAT EXAMPLE AND RUN IT BY FOLKS WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH HOW THE SYSTEM IS "SUPPOSED" TO WORK!!!

I take it there's a problem. If so, it's probably good advice.

[CorPse]

Thank you

I think the idea is more "realistic" in some cases. It's difficult to knock someone out without doing some lingering physical damage and it makes CAK more meaningful. A 50 Strength character can't just wail away on Agents confident that barring a an extreme roll their 12 PD/Armor combination will prevent him from killing them.

OTOH, Stun is an abstraction just like almost everything else in Hero so it seems there should be a way to do something like Knock out Gas or an Ecstasy Weapon that isn't a little lethal. I think I'd allow and Advantage Does No Body (+0 to +1/4) if I were to employ that rules in a campaign.

A little off topic, but in the realm of agents:

I've got a Super Agents game and I wanted to throw something a little beefer at them attack-wise. They had one opponent with a 12d6 blaster.... slightly tougher than their 10d6 models. First time he hits he does 59 STUN 18 BODY (and the guys armor doesn't activate). So now the poor bastard has lost 14 Body... :idjit: Not really my intention.

I could have nerfed the behind the screen damage, but I always feel like players can tell at some level when you do that. (And in an Agents game, I think it's important to have their vulnerability play a role.) In any case, he lived, but it showed me the hazards of planning on an "average" damage roll when dealing w/ the Agent genre.

[Netzilla]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Definitely not. I like the balance of the Speed Chart much better than any other initiative system I've ever come across. I can see arguments for expanding it out to more than 12 steps to either improve its granularity at the low end or open things up for speedsters. I doubt you'd need to go beyond 20-24 segments, though.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

I think this would be good thing. However, I do think that there should be a prevention of performing an Attack in the middle of your phase. Either it's the first thing you do or it's the last. This would help make hero combats a bit more dynamic as you'd have more opportunities for tactical movement.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

As I've stated elsewhere in the 6th edition threads, I strongly agree with this idea. I also think that CV and Skill Rolls should be computed in the same way (either Stat/5 or Stat/3).


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

My arguments in favor of this can be found over on the 'Powers: F-K' thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

Perhaps it was a desire to see toe-to-toe battles rather than "Character A hits Character B then moves away. Character B chases down Character A and hits him. Character A hits Character B then moves away. And so on.".

Because just standing toe to toe and slugging each other until someone falls over is so much more fun than having some variance.


It prevents a charater from acting twice in a segment.

We've always played similarly to your alternative - if you have 5 SPD, and hold on Ph 3, then if you Hold into Phase 5, you can move at DEX 1 million, but you don't get another move until your next phase.

This creates the metagame tactic ov moving "just before it becomes Phase 5" so you don't lose a phase. We solve that by saying that you decide to reserve, and it's too late to tap back when the fastest guy in phase 5 takes his action (ie two ladies in bathing attire don't rush across the field of combat holding "end of Phase 4" signs).

[Netzilla]

On the whole issue of holding phases, I really think that the rule needs to be that you have to state what it is that you are waiting for. In other words, you should not be able to just state, "I hold my action." and have it be valid. Rather you should be required to state, "I hold my action until someone comes around the corner." If your character had Absolute Time Sense, then I'd allow someone to state something like, "I hold my action until the end of Segment 4." If the "trigger" never comes up then you lose your held action. You were so focused on watching for such-and-such event that you missed your chance. This would reduce the frequency of actions rolling into your next Phase.

[archermoo]

On the whole issue of holding phases, I really think that the rule needs to be that you have to state what it is that you are waiting for. In other words, you should not be able to just state, "I hold my action." and have it be valid. Rather you should be required to state, "I hold my action until someone comes around the corner." If your character had Absolute Time Sense, then I'd allow someone to state something like, "I hold my action until the end of Segment 4." If the "trigger" never comes up then you lose your held action. You were so focused on watching for such-and-such event that you missed your chance. This would reduce the frequency of actions rolling into your next Phase.

Any particular reason why? It doesn't seem particularly realistic to me, and if it is for balance issues I don't understand what it is supposed to be balancing.

[Netzilla]

Any particular reason why? It doesn't seem particularly realistic to me, and if it is for balance issues I don't understand what it is supposed to be balancing.

Which party doesn't seem realistic? Is it the fact that you should be waiting for some specific thing or that you loose the action if the thing doesn't appear before your next action?

If it's the former, I am of the opinion that in the span of a few seconds, during the general chaos of combat, you cannot pay attention to everything. So, you need to focus on what it is you're waiting to act upon. Now, I allow a Perception roll to react to the unexpected (such as someone flanking and attacking while your attention is focused elsewhere) but in general you can't just hang out and wait for whatever.

All of the research I've ever seen and all the accounts I've ever read from those with real-world combat experience is that you tend to develop a tunnel-vision in combat. You actively have to fight the instinct to focus solely on what is directly in front of you. Even then, with training to broaden your focus, no one I've ever heard of is completely successful. My own experience with sparring in kickboxing and Judo bears this out and those guys aren't trying to kill me. It's really easy to not hear your corner when someone's trying to pound your face or choke you unconscious.

There's also examples from heroic fiction. I can recall scenes in which Conan was waiting for someone in front of him to make a move only to get KOed when someone else hit him from behind. Of course, I've also read scenes where he sensed the sneaking attacker. However, the idea of being focused on specific things in combat is supported by fiction as well as reality, IMO. I can't think of any good examples of the hero waiting around for nothing in particular.

[CorPse]

On the whole issue of holding phases, I really think that the rule needs to be that you have to state what it is that you are waiting for. In other words, you should not be able to just state, "I hold my action." and have it be valid. Rather you should be required to state, "I hold my action until someone comes around the corner." If your character had Absolute Time Sense, then I'd allow someone to state something like, "I hold my action until the end of Segment 4." If the "trigger" never comes up then you lose your held action. You were so focused on watching for such-and-such event that you missed your chance. This would reduce the frequency of actions rolling into your next Phase.

Curiously enough, I think this already is the default.

To paraphrase, 5ER states that some GM's allow the open-ended holds you describe above, but that holding for a reason is the default.

[Lucius]

Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: In the past I’ve seen people argue that “Killing” should just be an Advantage on Normal Damage attacks — basically a form of AVLD. The claim is that this is more consistent, easier to explain to newcomers, and less clutter on the character sheet. I am not inclined to do this at all, but in the “everything’s on the table” spirit of this forum I thought I’d raise the issue.



Eliminated, no....appropriately costed, yes. That doesn't have to mean making Killing an Advantage; it could mean taking the "Mandatory Limitation" from Hand to Hand Normal Attack and applying it to Ranged Normal Attack as well. In fact I think that would be better, since it means any objection to the cost of STR at 1:1 just evaporate (if you also, as you have indicated you are inclined to do, "decouple" figured characteristics.) Since Killing Attacks are better than Normal Attacks in two ways - the improved dice rolling mechanic, and the limited "AVLD" aspect - I think the Limitation should actually be two Limitations, one to impose the Normal dice rolling mechanic of rolling dice and adding them up for STUN, one to make it stoppable by NonResistant Defense. This isn't a major change (no change to Hand to Hand Normal Attack at all, except a little more granularity) and by splitting up the Limitations, it becomes possible to have an attack with the "Killing Mechanic" (roll for BODy) that applies against NonResistant Defense, or with the "Normal Mechanic" (roll for STUN) that applies against RESISTANT Defense. More options is always good!

Also, I think this should be linked to however you decide to handle Resistant Defense ; if you make Resistant an Advantage, perhaps Killing should be too, and if you make Resistant the default (as I suggested in the other thread) and Non-Resistant a Limitation, perhaps Killing should be the default for Attacks and Normal should be a Limitation.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary asserts that "Normal" is usually a Limitation, but I think it's talking about something else, actually....

[Netzilla]

Curiously enough, I think this already is the default.

To paraphrase, 5ER states that some GM's allow the open-ended holds you describe above, but that holding for a reason is the default.

Huh. There it is on pg 360:

He may wait until a lower DEX or until some event occurs (“I wait until he strikes”; “I wait until he comes around the corner”)...

With the GM's permission, a character can hold his action "generically", without declaring any sort of precondition for acting...

Since I've never even heard of another GM enforcing it that way, I never thought to look it up to see if my way was really a house rule or not. Cool. :thumbup:

[BobGreenwade]

I also think that CV and Skill Rolls should be computed in the same way (either Stat/5 or Stat/3).I've implied it elsewhere (particuarly in the Characteristics thread), but I'd like to clearly state my opposition to this idea. Having Skills Rolls work on CHA/5 and CV on CHA/3 is an aspect of the system that's been good at making nearly every point of DEX count for something significant; whether the next pip is worthwhile depends on which is more important for the particular character. Toss in initiative -- 15 beats 14, 21 beats 20, and so forth -- and there just aren't that many unattractive numbers for DEX. (A few, but not many.) We have almost as good a situation with EGO. I'd love to see more of the same for other Characteristics: the finer damage differentiation for STR (and PRE, for Presence Attacks), greater use of ICV and PCV (perhaps in the proposed Social Interaction system), and other ideas.

[Shike019]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. While the SPD system can be a touch cumbersome at times, it’s one of the defining elements of the HERO System and I think it works just fine most of the time. Furthermore, removing it would require all sorts of other changes throughout the rules, and that’s not desireable.


This is one of the things that excited me about the system, especially moving form D&D 3rd. My Biggest problem was the system was weighted heavily in favor of Heavily armed and armored fighters, where a fast lightly armored fighter could be just as effective.

[CorPse]

Huh. There it is on pg 360:

He may wait until a lower DEX or until some event occurs (“I wait until he strikes”; “I wait until he comes around the corner”)...

With the GM's permission, a character can hold his action "generically", without declaring any sort of precondition for acting...

Since I've never even heard of another GM enforcing it that way, I never thought to look it up to see if my way was really a house rule or not. Cool. :thumbup:

Crazy, hunh?

I've had the experience of going, "Oh, that's the real rule!," a couple of times when I've take the time to poke through 5ER. Glad I could save you a little "I hate this rule" frustration.

Now, you can go back to your previously scheduled disgust with a few GMs. :sneaky:

[nexus]

Crazy, hunh?

I've had the experience of going, "Oh, that's the real rule!," a couple of times when I've take the time to poke through 5ER. Glad I could save you a little "I hate this rule" frustration.

Now, you can go back to your previously scheduled disgust with a few GMs. :sneaky:

Weird. I completely forgot about that.

[CorPse]

Weird. I completely forgot about that.

I'm kind of hoping that 6e will be streamlined so that there are fewer things to hold in one's brain. I find that no matter how much of 5ER I shove in my noggin' a few things fall out one of my ears.

Of course, maybe not everyone else suffers from "hole in head syndrome," but there's a price to being a CorPse.

[SCUBA Hero]

It prevents a charater from acting twice in a segment.

It could probably be modified so that if you continue to hold it past the start of that segment, you automatically lose the next action. For example, Fred is SPD 5 and holds his action in Segment 3. When segment 5 rolls around, Fred can either lose his held action or he can lose his segment 5 action. Or I guess, instead of losing the segment 5 action, it could be made a held action that could not be taken before segment 6.

Or maybe you can let the charater act twice in the same segment. But that might open up its own can of worms.My thinking is similar; treat the character as having a Held Action until his DEX, at which time he loses the Held Action and has an Action. If he uses the Held Action before his DEX, he also loses his regular Action that segment. I don't want to allow a character to go twice on one Segment. I also see no reason why the character should lose a window of action (above his DEX) by Holding a previous Action.


I take it there's a problem. If so, it's probably good advice.By my count, there are eight errors, one possible error (depends on how far Maelstrom was Knocked Back), and one GM ruling that I disagree with (which is, of course, not an error) in the 5ER combat example on pages 430 - 432.

[Hugh Neilson]

Which party doesn't seem realistic? Is it the fact that you should be waiting for some specific thing or that you loose the action if the thing doesn't appear before your next action?

If it's the former, I am of the opinion that in the span of a few seconds, during the general chaos of combat, you cannot pay attention to everything. So, you need to focus on what it is you're waiting to act upon. Now, I allow a Perception roll to react to the unexpected (such as someone flanking and attacking while your attention is focused elsewhere) but in general you can't just hang out and wait for whatever.

All of the research I've ever seen and all the accounts I've ever read from those with real-world combat experience is that you tend to develop a tunnel-vision in combat. You actively have to fight the instinct to focus solely on what is directly in front of you. Even then, with training to broaden your focus, no one I've ever heard of is completely successful. My own experience with sparring in kickboxing and Judo bears this out and those guys aren't trying to kill me. It's really easy to not hear your corner when someone's trying to pound your face or choke you unconscious.

There's also examples from heroic fiction. I can recall scenes in which Conan was waiting for someone in front of him to make a move only to get KOed when someone else hit him from behind. Of course, I've also read scenes where he sensed the sneaking attacker. However, the idea of being focused on specific things in combat is supported by fiction as well as reality, IMO. I can't think of any good examples of the hero waiting around for nothing in particular.

I think that the "master planners" such as Batman tend to lurk on the fringes of the battle, waiting for the moment when their actions can have the most impact. That sounds like a delay for nothing specific, but waiting to see how the situation develops.

My preference is simply that such a character advises he is delaying. Time passes until he decides to do something. If the lowest DEX character in phase 4 moves, and he does nothing, play moves to the highest DEX character in Phase 5 and, if the delaying character was SPD 5, he can move at any time he wishes (he still has a delayed phase) but will not get an additional action in Phase 5 - his next new action is in Phase 8.

Part of the conceptual problem arises from the fact that phases are not discrete units of time, they are carved up as such to enable the game to flow. Absolute Time Sense will not let a character detect the end of Segment 4 because, to the characters, these segments do not exist - time flows onward, one moment into the next, without discrete breakpoints.

[IndianaJoe3]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
No. It works well, even though it lacks granularity on the low end. I would fix that by making SPD cheaper, but turns longer (15-20 segments/turn).


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?Separate movement from a character's action phases. That would let you move on the next segment.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?Don't care, as long as it's mechanically equivalent.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?No, but I'd be happy if the STUN lottery was eliminated. I hate it when characters get 1-shot because of a fluke die roll.:jawdrop:


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?Yes. :thumbup:

[Netzilla]

I think that the "master planners" such as Batman tend to lurk on the fringes of the battle, waiting for the moment when their actions can have the most impact. That sounds like a delay for nothing specific, but waiting to see how the situation develops.

My preference is simply that such a character advises he is delaying. Time passes until he decides to do something.

I see what you're saying but I don't view that situation in quite he same way since he's not actually in the combat yet. It's quite a bit different when you're in the thick of it. In that situation, I'd be more inclined to allow a general delay depending on the size of the combat being watched.


Part of the conceptual problem arises from the fact that phases are not discrete units of time, they are carved up as such to enable the game to flow. Absolute Time Sense will not let a character detect the end of Segment 4 because, to the characters, these segments do not exist - time flows onward, one moment into the next, without discrete breakpoints.

However, if someone with Absolute Time Sense cannot know when the end of Segment 4 is, no one can. Also, with a Turn being both 12 seconds and 12 Segments, it's a fair bet that one Segment is close enough to 1 second to call it such. Given that a speed 4 character acts 4 times in 12 seconds and such actions are, barring a held action, evenly spaced, each such Phase is roughly 3 seconds. If any character can deduce all that in the middle of combat, it would be the character with Absolute Time Sense. Given Batman's ability to time an opponent's (not to mention his own) actions down to the 100th of a second, I'd say he does have ATS.

[Netzilla]

Now, you can go back to your previously scheduled disgust with a few GMs. :sneaky:

Was this directed at me or the thread in general?

[CorPse]

Was this directed at me or the thread in general?

Mostly you...

... but if there are other people that don't like how their GM's apply the "Hold" rule, they can flog their local GM(s).

:eg:

[Netzilla]

Mostly you...

... but if there are other people that don't like how their GM's apply the "Hold" rule, they can flog their local GM(s).

:eg:

Well, my post wasn't motivated by disgust. Disagreement, sure, but disgust would be a bit strong. What was it I wrote that made you think disgust? I fear I may have worded something a bit stronger than intended but I'm not sure what.

[James Gillen]

Though Fuzion scaled stun and body differently (both stun and hits were equal to Bod*5), so it's not quite equivalent. Also, Fuzion didn't have separate calculation of body pips vs stun pips. Against a killing attack, you just took (damage-defense) points of both stun and hits. Against a normal attack, you took (damage-defense) stun and (damage-defense)/5 hits.

It was not a terrible system. Fuzion had its share of good ideas, it just also had its share of really bad ideas.

Fuzion had a lot of ideas I didn't like.

This was one of them. :D

JG

[nexus]

Re: Moving after attacking.

I’m torn on this issue. The benefits, as I see them are:

1. Its nominally more “realistic”. The restriction on acting after an attack is somewhat artificial as stated. While it doesn’t happen a great deal in the real world, it can be done.

2 It may reduce the “freeze frame” feel of Hero combat that bugs some people. Speed is just actions per turn and breaks things up into a flow but some players get the mental image that combat occurs segment by segment “frames” of discrete time.

3. It would allow certain types of attacks and characters to be simulated more easily.

But possible draw backs are that Speed and Movement could come to dominate combat, at least for non ranged attackers. It would not be hard to build character that could be effectively untouchable in HTH combat because they could out distance any other opponent before they could respond. Again that’s possibly realistic but not necessarily fair or exciting to game.

My suggestions:

Divorce movement from Speed and Phase, Characters can move so many meters/hexes per turn/segment. A attack action would still end the character’s action phase. They’d have to wait until the next segment to move again (baring some talent or maneuver.) There’d be some issues of “unhittable” characters, particularly if they have a high speed and/or some unusual means of movement (like Flight, Teleportation or the ability to move into solid objects) but it would be somewhat mitigated. Exalted uses a system like this.

Allow movement after attacking as a maneuver, perhaps a modified form of Move By/Move Thru or DFC. It wouldn’t grant velocity damage but might penalize DCV severely until the character’s next Phase, for example.

The issue of character constantly moving away might be mitigated by allowing Held Actions to apply longer. A character at a Speed/Dex Disadvantage could hold to attack a a nimble character and introducing a type of “Attack of Opportunity” style universal Combat maneuver, basically an Attack which would be aborted (at a penalty).

[Hugh Neilson]

I see what you're saying but I don't view that situation in quite he same way since he's not actually in the combat yet. It's quite a bit different when you're in the thick of it. In that situation, I'd be more inclined to allow a general delay depending on the size of the combat being watched.

I'd suggest modifiers on the character's PER roll. If he didn't notice Demolisher preparing to strike Crimson Fury, he can't take his action to stop it. The wider, and more complex, the combat, the worse the PER penalties.


However, if someone with Absolute Time Sense cannot know when the end of Segment 4 is, no one can. Also, with a Turn being both 12 seconds and 12 Segments, it's a fair bet that one Segment is close enough to 1 second to call it such. Given that a speed 4 character acts 4 times in 12 seconds and such actions are, barring a held action, evenly spaced, each such Phase is roughly 3 seconds. If any character can deduce all that in the middle of combat, it would be the character with Absolute Time Sense. Given Batman's ability to time an opponent's (not to mention his own) actions down to the 100th of a second, I'd say he does have ATS.

I agree with your point where I have added emphasis. No one can know when Segment 4 ends, because Segment 4 is a game mechanic construct, not part of the world in which the character lives. As to spacing it out, that 4 SPD character can also move near the end of Ph 5 and at the start of Ph 6, which makes it tough to say "he can punch every three seconds".

[Supreme Serpent]

A little off topic, but in the realm of agents:

I've got a Super Agents game and I wanted to throw something a little beefer at them attack-wise. They had one opponent with a 12d6 blaster.... slightly tougher than their 10d6 models. First time he hits he does 59 STUN 18 BODY (and the guys armor doesn't activate). So now the poor bastard has lost 14 Body... :idjit: Not really my intention.

I could have nerfed the behind the screen damage, but I always feel like players can tell at some level when you do that. (And in an Agents game, I think it's important to have their vulnerability play a role.) In any case, he lived, but it showed me the hazards of planning on an "average" damage roll when dealing w/ the Agent genre.

I think it more shows the dangers of Activation Rolls on defenses. ;) Even taking out the extra two DC the guy still would have lost 10 Body.

[Netzilla]

I agree with your point where I have added emphasis. No one can know when Segment 4 ends, because Segment 4 is a game mechanic construct, not part of the world in which the character lives.

However, Segments, unlike Phases, do not vary according to character Speed. There are always 12 Segments every Turn/12 Seconds. Also, 5er pg 21, "Segment: The smallest unit of time in the game, equal to 1 second." and pg 256, "A Turn consists of 12 Segments, each 1 second long."


As to spacing it out, that 4 SPD character can also move near the end of Ph 5 and at the start of Ph 6, which makes it tough to say "he can punch every three seconds".

On average, he does punch once every 3 seconds, since he'll almost never punch more than 4 times in a 12 second period. Now, recognizing this would require either observing someone over the course of several Turns or (in my campaign) an Analyze Combat roll with modifiers depending on how long the observation has taken place (less than a Turn taking severe penalties) and how much the target has attempted to disguise his speed (acting less often, holding phases, etc). However, this is only useful for attempting to gauge the target's Speed score, not when the end of Segment 4 is.

[SSgt Baloo]

I really, really like Pulp and Golden Age (WWII & just prior) settings. I'd really like there to be some way for flying heroes (Superguy, Rocket-Pacman, Etc.) to engage in combat with aircraft without opening a 55 gallon drum of handwavium to do it. If anyone has a good way to handle these situations, start a thread and PM me where it's at (or just PM me). :straight:

Edit: Oh, yeah, and this subject needs more coverage in the campaign supplements (Champions, Pulp Hero, Ultimate Vehicle, etc.) that it might apply to.

[SSgt Baloo]

I'd suggest modifiers on the character's PER roll. If he didn't notice Demolisher preparing to strike Crimson Fury, he can't take his action to stop it. The wider, and more complex, the combat, the worse the PER penalties.

I'd suggest ± 0 for two (or fewer) combatants, -1 for each doubling (or some such, YMMV).

[JohnTaber]

Re: Moving after attacking.

I’m torn on this issue. The benefits, as I see them are:

1. Its nominally more “realistic”. The restriction on acting after an attack is somewhat artificial as stated. While it doesn’t happen a great deal in the real world, it can be done.

2 It may reduce the “freeze frame” feel of Hero combat that bugs some people. Speed is just actions per turn and breaks things up into a flow but some players get the mental image that combat occurs segment by segment “frames” of discrete time.

3. It would allow certain types of attacks and characters to be simulated more easily.


This really summarizes my feelings on this topic. Nicely put. I'm not sure I agree with you solutions but this part is good. I DO like the concept of some type of penality. What about a broad penalty like -1 OCV and DCV if you move at all on the same phase that you attacK?

[Aroooo]

Re: Moving after attacking.
Allow movement after attacking as a maneuver, perhaps a modified form of Move By/Move Thru or DFC. It wouldn’t grant velocity damage but might penalize DCV severely until the character’s next Phase, for example.


Personally, I like the 'attack ends move/phase' aspect of the game. But I could live with something like this; possibly have one OCV/DCV for the attacker when attacking, and a second after they move. The value dependent on distance moved maybe.

Aroooo

[Klaus Mogensen]

On the subject of Normal and Killing Damage, I think one important point should be brought up: Against a character of typical DEF, Killing attacks on the average do more Stun than Normal attacks - even against resistant defense.

How do I figure this? I hear you say. After all, (say) 3d6 Normal does an average of 10.5 Stun, whereas a corresponding Killing attack (1d6K) only does an average of 9.333 Stun. True, but that is before defense is subtracted. Killing attacks have a long tail end that does really low Stun, but against a defense of (say) 8, it doesn't matter if an attack does 1 or 8 points of Stun - neither will do any damage. However, the 1 will reduce the average before defense a lot more than the 8.

Let's look at the problem in more detail: 3d6N and 1d6K versus DEF 8.

For 3d6N, attacks that do 9-18 Stun will do damage. This adds up like this:
(18-8)/216 + (17-8)*3/216 + (16-8)*6/216 + (15-8)*10/216 + (14-8)*15/216 + (13-8)*21/216 + (12-8)*25/216 + (11-8)*27/216 + (10-8)*27/216 + (9-8)*25/216 = 2.824 Stun average through defense

For 1d6K, attacks that do 9-30 Stun will do damage. This looks like:
(30-8)/36 + (25-8)/36 + (24-8)/36 + (20-8)*2/36 + (18-8)/36 + (16-8)/36 + (15-8)*2/36 + (12-8)*3/36 + (10-8)*2/36 + (9-8)/36 = 3.556 Stun average through defense

This gets worse as DC increases, because the distribution of 3nd6N gets increasingly narrow (relatively speaking) as n increases, wheras nd6K remains a quite broad distribution because of the Stun multiplier die. Do the math yourself, or simulate a high number of random attacks for various values of DC versus DEF. The problem is also aggravated if defenses are relatively higher than in this example.

This problem needs attention. I think it makes sense to simply make "Killing" a +½ advantage to Normal attacks; after all, resistant damage is 50% more expensive than non-resistant defense.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
Futurist, writer and amateur game designer

[The Main Man]

On the subject of Normal and Killing Damage, I think one important point should be brought up: Against a character of typical DEF, Killing attacks on the average do more Stun than Normal attacks - even against resistant defense.

How do I figure this? I hear you say. After all, (say) 3d6 Normal does an average of 10.5 Stun, whereas a corresponding Killing attack (1d6K) only does an average of 9.333 Stun. True, but that is before defense is subtracted. Killing attacks have a long tail end that does really low Stun, but against a defense of (say) 8, it doesn't matter if an attack does 1 or 8 points of Stun - neither will do any damage. However, the 1 will reduce the average before defense a lot more than the 8.

Let's look at the problem in more detail: 3d6N and 1d6K versus DEF 8.

For 3d6N, attacks that do 9-18 Stun will do damage. This adds up like this:
(18-8)/216 + (17-8)*3/216 + (16-8)*6/216 + (15-8)*10/216 + (14-8)*15/216 + (13-8)*21/216 + (12-8)*25/216 + (11-8)*27/216 + (10-8)*27/216 + (9-8)*25/216 = 2.824 Stun average through defense

For 1d6K, attacks that do 9-30 Stun will do damage. This looks like:
(30-8)/36 + (25-8)/36 + (24-8)/36 + (20-8)*2/36 + (18-8)/36 + (16-8)/36 + (15-8)*2/36 + (12-8)*3/36 + (10-8)*2/36 + (9-8)/36 = 3.556 Stun average through defense

This gets worse as DC increases, because the distribution of 3nd6N gets increasingly narrow (relatively speaking) as n increases, wheras nd6K remains a quite broad distribution because of the Stun multiplier die. Do the math yourself, or simulate a high number of random attacks for various value of DC versus DEF. The problem is also aggravated if defenses are relatively higher than in this example.

This problem needs attention. I think it makes sense to simply make "Killing" a +½ advantage to Normal attacks; after all, resistant damage is 50% more expensive than non-resistant defense.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
Futurist, writer and amateur game designer

But don't forget that one of the Meta-rules of HERO is that defense should be significantly cheaper than the attacks that they defend against.

If Resistant is a +1/2 advantage, then Killing should be at least a +1 advantage.

I think that if Killing is changed to some kind of AVLD advantage that Resistant Defenses only counter the BODY damage of a Killing Attack; they have nothing to do with the STUN damage.

If you have 10 PD or 10 rPD, you will take the same amount of STUN Damage whether the attack was Killing or Normal; Killing is only BODY damaged based, since KO'ing the opponent has little to do with literally killing them.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No. The speed chart is what makes HERO, HERO. It is the key thing that originally attracted me to Champions as is the best way of reflecting a slow brick, martial artists and speedsters in the same system.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

On the fence with this one.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Sure, the idea Steve expressed works for me.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

No. The current way works for me.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Need to hear more about what the changes could be for an opinion on the matter.

[Olliande]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

No

Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

No

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Why not.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

No. But in my games, there is always a problem: Killing Attack do never body and sometimes they crush the opponent with the multiplier. It's wrong

[Steve Long]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

Steve's Thoughts: I think this one is worth considering, though I can't say I'm 100% sold on it yet. It's a little unfair to give someone two "attacks" in one Phase, and it leads to some confusion and annoying questions. It might work better if you have to wait for your next Phase to Squeeze/Throw. OTOH, this might be a change that doesn't really add anything and so isn't worth making.

[Supreme Serpent]

I think it's OK to keep it - taking a penalty vs. regular strike, don't think letting them immediately squeeze/throw is unbalancing.

[Netzilla]

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

Steve's Thoughts: I think this one is worth considering, though I can't say I'm 100% sold on it yet. It's a little unfair to give someone two "attacks" in one Phase, and it leads to some confusion and annoying questions. It might work better if you have to wait for your next Phase to Squeeze/Throw. OTOH, this might be a change that doesn't really add anything and so isn't worth making.

Is this really getting two attacks in one phase? You only roll to hit once and you only roll damage once (either for the squeeze or the impact of the throw). Unless I've missed something all these years and you can both squeeze and throw in the same phase, I don't see how Grab & Squeeze or Grab & Throw are really two separate attacks.

[nexus]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

Steve's Thoughts: I think this one is worth considering, though I can't say I'm 100% sold on it yet. It's a little unfair to give someone two "attacks" in one Phase, and it leads to some confusion and annoying questions. It might work better if you have to wait for your next Phase to Squeeze/Throw. OTOH, this might be a change that doesn't really add anything and so isn't worth making.

I think it might be advisable for one reason. It would reduce the "Grab and toss out of combat or straight up" tactic which can be particularly bad with TK (even vs bricks since they usually just get their casual strength to resist the initial grab).

A House rule I've adopted is to let the target of a Grab Abort to Escape and use their full Strength.

[Tonio]

Is this really getting two attacks in one phase? You only roll to hit once and you only roll damage once (either for the squeeze or the impact of the throw). Unless I've missed something all these years and you can both squeeze and throw in the same phase, I don't see how Grab & Squeeze or Grab & Throw are really two separate attacks.

Well, first off, lemme profess my unfamiliarity with the Grab rules. For some unexplained reason, my group tends to shy away from Grabs. (No, there is no sarcasm in that sentence... whenever I've read the Grab rules, I've found them not excessively complicated, and useful enough as a maneuver. I really don't know why we (that is, my gaming group and I) don't use Grab more often.)

Anyhoo... Grab & Squeeze I can see. That could be just one attack roll (for the grab), and one damage roll (for the squeeze). Sure, it's more useful than a Strike (well, arguably... Strike has Knockback), but then it has more penalties, too.

Grab & Throw, though, should be two actions. Throwing should require an Attack roll against the target hex (even if adjacent, we have rules for that!).

[Klaus Mogensen]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?

The chart may be clunky, but I have yet to see another system for handling different numbers of actions that doesn't tend to either top-load or bottom-load the extra actions.

One thing to consider is getting rid of the post-segment-12 recovery after the intial (surprise) round. I have seen many players holding back their attacks until segment 1 so that their opponents won't get an immediate recovery.

Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

I might consider allowing moving after attacking if and only if you stun or kb your opponent(s). Anyway, I suggest playtesting such changes heavily with 'evil' players to see if they can be abused.

Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

Not important to me, but go ahead if you have a good idea.

Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

Yes. I would prefer if Killing simply becomes an advantage "Body isn't stopped by non-resistant defense". Given the general Hero philosophy regarding attacks and defenses, this could be anything from a +½ to a +1 advantage. (See recent posts discussing this)

Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

I would like to see something general like "you can add 1 DC to your attack per -2 on your roll, or you can add +1 to your roll per -1 DC". Some martial maneuvers could allow better exchange rates up to a point and at a cost.

In particular, I think there's a problem with Haymaker and Move Through at high power levels. Haymaker, because you get a multiplier that provides more extra dice the higher STR is; Move Through, because the bonus from Move gets higher at higher levels.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
Futurist & writer

[archermoo]

One thing to consider is getting rid of the post-segment-12 recovery after the intial (surprise) round. I have seen many players holding back their attacks until segment 1 so that their opponents won't get an immediate recovery.


I'm curious: I've never actually played with anyone who has done this, but I've seen a couple of people mention here on the boards. Do people who do this delay all of the Segment 12 actions to 1, or just the first one?

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

Steve's Thoughts: I think this one is worth considering, though I can't say I'm 100% sold on it yet. It's a little unfair to give someone two "attacks" in one Phase, and it leads to some confusion and annoying questions. It might work better if you have to wait for your next Phase to Squeeze/Throw. OTOH, this might be a change that doesn't really add anything and so isn't worth making.Getting rid of it as a "free" thing, I think yes. There should be a combat penalty for attempting both in the same Phase. I've generally played that you couldn't do both in the same Phase, but if the penalty for doing both is similar to the penalty for Sweep I think it'd be acceptable. I also like nexus' idea of (explicitly) allowing Grabbed targets to Abort to an Escape; I'd allow such an action to interrupt a Grab & Act (Squeeze, Throw, whatever) before the second part of the attack.

[ajackson]

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?
It's useful to have a non-martial-arts method that's equivalent to a trip or throw. Currently, the only way to do that is grab&throw. That point aside, however, grab&squeeze and an aimed throw both tend to be slightly overpowered as maneuvers.

[Alibear]

I would leave grab as is. It 'feels' right when I consider combat in the dojo. If someone bigger and stronger than you gets a grip there really isn't that much you can do about it.

You really are at his mercy, especially if he is as well trained at fighting as you are.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?
I would keep it the way it is. To me it seems right.

[Supreme Serpent]

Plus there's so many ways of getting multiple attacks in one phase that it seems odd to me to single this one out.

[Sean Waters]

I'm curious: I've never actually played with anyone who has done this, but I've seen a couple of people mention here on the boards. Do people who do this delay all of the Segment 12 actions to 1, or just the first one?

Tactically it makes some sense, but mainly for the first one: thereafter if the opponent has at least REC in damage, you are not at any particular advantage delaying in this way. The aim is to get as many attacks in in the first full turn as possible to maximise your chance of taking the opponent down.

[dsatow]

Q: Should SPD/the Speed Chart be removed?
No. Its one of the most characteristic features in HERO.


Q: Should you be able to act after an Attack Action?

No. The same problem in champions level will end up affecting HERO level games where you have people fighting and backing away. You'll end up doing something similar to D&D3+e in that you will have to promote some type of penalty to prevent this.

Also, this doesn't really promote the look and feel of the genres HERO is great at, Comic books and movies. You don't really see hit and run tactics in those. It usually a stand up fight.


Q: Should we change the default way the Attack Roll is presented?

I personally think this speeds up play and makes it easier for people to learn. Those ingrained but starting out on the system tend to use charts, etc. This is a simpler method IMHO.

However in a previous forum you suggested a different combat system all together to eliminate the huge offset a +1-+3 can have in combat. After thinking about it some more, I like the idea of a challenge system where the target rolls 3d6+DCV and the attacker rolls a 3d6+OCV where the higher roll wins. A tie should go to the defender.


Q: Should the distinction between Normal Damage and Killing Damage be eliminated?

No, resistant/normal is one of the key defining points of the game system. i think this is a bad idea.


Q: Should the rules for Adding Damage be changed or streamlined?

Yes, lets go with the most complicated version to date.

A pushed martial punch with an HA AP.

Where should the Push go? Do they push STR or the HA? Does martial arts add unudulterated DC to the HA AP or should they be restrained?

Personally, I think in this case, we should figure all items as active points of dice and then calculate the reduction based on advantage. Thus if you have 20 str with a martial punch +2d6 and +2d6 HA AP, you would have 45 active worth of attack or 6d6 AP. Pushing this would yeild an extra 1d6 AP no matter how you look at this.

[archermoo]

Tactically it makes some sense, but mainly for the first one: thereafter if the opponent has at least REC in damage, you are not at any particular advantage delaying in this way. The aim is to get as many attacks in in the first full turn as possible to maximise your chance of taking the opponent down.

Sounds like a trade of more STUN out for more END spent.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'm curious: I've never actually played with anyone who has done this [delaying attacks from segment 12 to segment 1], but I've seen a couple of people mention here on the boards. Do people who do this delay all of the Segment 12 actions to 1, or just the first one?
In my experience, only in the first segment 12, when characters are fresh. The idea seems to be that you are unlikely to knock targets out on the first attack, and then they will immediately get some or even all the lost Stun back. In the second segment 12, an attack is much more likely to knock out, and there may be a point to get targets down under -20 Stun so that they don't get their ps12 recovery.

BTW, I've always hated that you more or less have to hit targets that are lying down to make sure they don't get back up again immediately. That doesn't seem very heroic to me.

Anyway, I remember way back somebody writing that he had turned the SPD chart around so that everybody acted in segment 1 rather than in segment 12. Then surprise would start on segment 1, with the surprised parties not acting until their next action. This seems a worthwhile idea.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
Futurist & writer

[dsatow]

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

No, it just should be clarified that you can merge two manuevers together adding the penalties. I would disallow squeeze and throw stating that the manuevers counter act against each other (ones a tightening of grip while the other is a lossening of a grip).

Thus a compound manuever can be done if people want to so long as the special effects don't prevent the action. Since you are compounding actions, if both actions take a half phase, the action takes a full phase. Only penalties stack, bonuses do not. So a grab and throw can be done in a full move action. You can also do a counter strike this way with block/strike if they have a full held action. This can open the door to such things a haymakered squeezes which you see in some comics or haymakered move through (suicidal ram) however.

[archermoo]

In my experience, only in the first segment 12, when characters are fresh. The idea seems to be that you are unlikely to knock targets out on the first attack, and then they will immediately get some or even all the lost Stun back. In the second segment 12, an attack is much more likely to knock out, and there may be a point to get targets down under -20 Stun so that they don't get their ps12 recovery.

BTW, I've always hated that you more or less have to hit targets that are lying down to make sure they don't get back up again immediately. That doesn't seem very heroic to me.

Anyway, I remember way back somebody writing that he had turned the SPD chart around so that everybody acted in segment 1 rather than in segment 12. Then surprise would start on segment 1, with the surprised parties not acting until their next action. This seems a worthwhile idea.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen
Futurist & writer

I generally look at the first 12 as an opportunity to make a more or less free (ENDwise at least) attack, and if I can do more STUN to them than they have REC I'm ahead of the game.

I'm personally against changing the order of the SPD chart. Though including the idea of skipping the first Post-12 recovery as an optional rule wouldn't necessarily suck. :)

[Sean Waters]

I quite liked the old -1 per 3" range modfifier. IIRC a range level then changed it to -1 per 4" and so on. Obviously this is a problem for longer range attacks where the numbers start to get silly, but then the exponential increase in range before another penalty is incurred doesn't seem that realistic either.

Perhaps a reversion to the old system and an 'accurate' advantage that changes the range mod, say x10 per +1/4, so a +1/4 accurate attack would have a range mod of -1/30".

Anyway, just kicking out ideas...

[Sean Waters]

The system that we use for determining whether you can damage someone you have in a grab doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you have someone in a bearhug then I can not see how you would need to roll to hit in order to hug them a little harder, if you have someone's arm twisted up their back then I don't see how you would need to roll to hit to push it a little further.

I can see balance issues, however, in games with substantial differences between the strengths of characters (especially in Champions games).

Perhaps, therefore, we could rule that you can damage someone you have grabbed in one of several ways:

1. Applying more pressure. You don't need to roll to hit but it is not the most effective method: the target can use their strength as additonal PD, or a proportion of it, say STR/2: crushing someone is pretty difficult, and almost impossible if the target has a similar strength to you. NB to use theri strength to resist crushing damage costs END, even if they are not using it for anything else that phase eg if they decide not to try and break out of the grab using strength. This would substantially mitigate the balance issues whilst retaining some sense of realism.

2. Any attack you can normally do. You do have to roll to hit but you can tahke advantage of your opponent's reduced DCV against you.

3. Throw. You cast the opponent away from you, and let go. This is almost always considered a standing throw. They take damage equal to your STR if they hit an upright solid object, or half that if they just skid along the ground (a bit like KB) or, if they are in the air when they reach the max distance of your throw they start to fall and take falling damage as appropriate. A thrown target is normally considered prone when they land.

[Sean Waters]

I generally look at the first 12 as an opportunity to make a more or less free (ENDwise at least) attack, and if I can do more STUN to them than they have REC I'm ahead of the game.

I'm personally against changing the order of the SPD chart. Though including the idea of skipping the first Post-12 recovery as an optional rule wouldn't necessarily suck. :)

Skipping all PS12 recoveries is an option we could consider too. This could be implemented ins everal ways:

1. No initial PS12 recovery: this would mitigate the feeling that the first attack is often wasted as a recovery is taken immediately, and remove the need to delay that first attack to segment one as a metagame tactic.

2. No PS12 for stun: this would speed up combat, probably - you don't get stun back until you specifically use a phase to rest, or combat is over.

3. You have to decide if you recover END or STUN on your PS12: again this should speed up combat and gives the player another important tactical choice. This option would make END Reserves a very attractive option though...and increase the value of reduced END powers and charges.

[archermoo]

Skipping all PS12 recoveries is an option we could consider too. This could be implemented ins everal ways:

1. No initial PS12 recovery: this would mitigate the feeling that the first attack is often wasted as a recovery is taken immediately, and remove the need to delay that first attack to segment one as a metagame tactic.

2. No PS12 for stun: this would speed up combat, probably - you don't get stun back until you specifically use a phase to rest, or combat is over.

3. You have to decide if you recover END or STUN on your PS12: again this should speed up combat and gives the player another important tactical choice. This option would make END Reserves a very attractive option though...and increase the value of reduced END powers and charges.

All of them potentially interesting optional rules. I certainly wouldn't be interested in using any of them myself, but I can that other people might be.

I've never seen any usefulness to options to "speed up" HERO combat. Seems plenty fast to me already. :)

[Alibear]

Skipping all PS12 recoveries is an option we could consider too. This could be implemented ins everal ways:

No PS12 recovery

All games I GM now will use this house rule.

[caris]

All games I GM now will use this house rule.

So do they recover STUN and END at some other point on the time chart, or do they just reset back to full at some point between combats?

Do you only use REC for determining Body regained per month, or do you just not use the REC characteristic?

[archermoo]

So do they recover STUN and END at some other point on the time chart, or do they just reset back to full at some point between combats?

Do you only use REC for determining Body regained per month, or do you just not use the REC characteristic?

I would guess only when they explicitly take a Recovery action.

[Alibear]

What Archermoo said. Although I haven't playtested this since I made the decision.

[nexus]

I've always wondered if dropping Post 12 recovery would make characters too easy to tire out/knock out, particularly if they have high speeds. I've never playtested it though.

A more complicated rule could be to make Post 12 recovery based on a Con roll. It would also give Con something else to do.

[Alibear]

I'm also dropping end so need some kinda alternative pushing limitation...

[IndianaJoe3]

I originally posted this in the SPD thread, before it was locked.


I've been playing around with the ideas of increasing the number of segments in a turn (to 15 or 20), reducing the cost of SPD (8 or 6 pts for 1 SPD), and changing base SPD (either 1+DEX/8 or 1+DEX/6), and divorcing movement from the Speed Chart. Let's consider a few examples:

1. DEX 14, SPD 3
2. DEX 18, SPD 3
3. DEX 18, SPD 4
4. DEX 23, SPD 4
5. DEX 23, SPD 5
6. DEX 30, SPD 6
7. DEX 60, SPD 12

(Normals, as always, will be DEX 10 and SPD 2.)

#1, under the current system, spends 6 points on SPD. Under the 15-segment (15S) chart, he would spend 2 pts for SPD 3 or 10 pts for SPD 4. The 20-segment chart (20S) gives him a base SPD of 3, and SPD 4 costs 4 pts.

#2 normally spends 2 pts. 15S gives him a base SPD 3, and SPD 4 is only 4 more points. Under 20S his base is 4 SPD, and SPD 5 costs 6 more points.

#3 normally spends 12 points. Under 15S, 12 points will get him to SPD 5. 12 points under 20S gives him SPD 6.

#4 spends 7 points normally. Under 15S he spends 1 point for SPD 4, or 9 pts for SPD 5. 20S gives a base SPD 4, SPD 5 for 1 pt, and SPD 6 for 7 pts.

#5 normally spends 17 points. The same 17 points gives him SPD 6 under 15s. Under 20S, he can spend 13 pts for SPD 7 or 19 pts for SPD 8.

#6 spends 20 points normally. He'll have a base SPD of 4 under 15S, and 20 pts will give him SPD 7. 20S gives him a base of 6 SPD, and 24 pts gives him SPD 10.

#7 normally spends 50 points maxing out. He'll spend 52 points under 15S and 54 points under 20S.

Continuing my post, the extended Speed Chart might work best with the segmented movement rules from The Ultimate Speedster. Leaving the movement system as-is probably wouldn't break anything, though.

[Opal]

I'm also dropping end so need some kinda alternative pushing limitation...You could have the pushing character take 1d6 STN per 5 pts pushed. Or even the 1d per 2 you take when spending END you haven't got.

[BobGreenwade]

Just a thought....

I've seen Pushing abused somewhat in games (as the default way of getting "extra damage," rather than Haymaker), so maybe there could be certain side effects such as loss of Senses for a Phase, loss of 1 BODY, loss of bladder control...

Or not. Just thinking out loud here.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's useful to have a non-martial-arts method that's equivalent to a trip or throw. Currently, the only way to do that is grab&throw. That point aside, however, grab&squeeze and an aimed throw both tend to be slightly overpowered as maneuvers.

I have no problem with Grab & Squeeze - that one seems logical. I think clarifying that a Throw is blind - not aimed at another target - unless you wait until your next phase would be adequate.

[archermoo]

Just a thought....

I've seen Pushing abused somewhat in games (as the default way of getting "extra damage," rather than Haymaker), so maybe there could be certain side effects such as loss of Senses for a Phase, loss of 1 BODY, loss of bladder control...

Or not. Just thinking out loud here.

On the reverse of that a friend of mine charges an extra 5 END to do a Haymaker in games he runs. He doesn't feel that the existing negatives are sufficient. :)

[James Gillen]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change Grab to get rid of the free Squeeze/Throw option?

Steve's Thoughts: I think this one is worth considering, though I can't say I'm 100% sold on it yet. It's a little unfair to give someone two "attacks" in one Phase, and it leads to some confusion and annoying questions. It might work better if you have to wait for your next Phase to Squeeze/Throw. OTOH, this might be a change that doesn't really add anything and so isn't worth making.

No, it gives flexibility and creative options and is a change not worth making for the sake of it.

JG

[Alibear]

That's it. I'll remove pushing and allow all powers to be haymakered. Perfectly sensible.

Isn't it amazing what a good night's sleep can do for clarity of thought?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Skipping all PS12 recoveries is an option we could consider too.
This would require movement powers to be 0 END, or you couldn't move non-combat for very many turns. Stopping to do a Recovery action could be awkward if you're flying. With a PS12 recovery, you can match your REC to the END you spend moving in a turn.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

[Sean Waters]

This would require movement powers to be 0 END, or you couldn't move non-combat for very many turns. Stopping to do a Recovery action could be awkward if you're flying. With a PS12 recovery, you can match your REC to the END you spend moving in a turn.
________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

You could allow PS12 recoveries when moving non-combat, that would solve the problem - you just remove them IN combat. I'm not saying I favour the approach, I'm just putting up some alternatives.

[SCUBA Hero]

Consider allowing 0 END Powers to function while taking a Recovery.

Some kind of vehicle and large creature scaling that allows, say, capital starship combat without getting wonky on a hex map.

As an optional rule, similar to Long Term Endurance, have Long Term Stun. It bothers me in some genres and campaigns that, no matter how beaten up a character becomes (so long as they don't go too far into negative Stun), they're fine and ready to go after taking a few Recoveries. Maybe one Long Term Stun is lost per ten or 20 Stun taken.

[IndianaJoe3]

Some kind of vehicle and large creature scaling that allows, say, capital starship combat without getting wonky on a hex map.
HERO gets weird when it deals with large objects. Personal-scale weapons are much too effective against large-scale objects, and some large-scale weapons aren't effective enough against individual-scale objects, unless they're handwaved.

[SCUBA Hero]

Yes. Thus, some method of scaling.

[IndianaJoe3]

Yes. Thus, some method of scaling.
Maybe something like Megascale applied to attacks and defenses? *insert STOP sign here*

[i3ullseye]

Not sure I agree with scaling like that, but back to the Sped chart discussion I think scaling is perfect.

Maybe you have 3 "scales" of speed to play under, and the chart adapts.

On one level, for normal level games you have a chart that covers Speeds 1, 2 and 3. This would flip things a bit as the order of actions would shift some....

Speed...........Phase1......Phase2.......Phase3... .....
1......................................X.......... ........
2.....................X........................... .......X
3.....................X...............X........... ......X

So now the speed 2 gets a jump on the speed 1, but doesn't unload on them completely before they act.

Next you could have the Heroic speed level, for Speeds 1 through 4. Again some adjustments can be taken into consideration on how the actions are distributed, but this one is likely more straightforward.

Speed...........Phase1......Phase2.......Phase3... .....Phase 4
1................................................. .........X.................
2.......................................X......... ..........................X
3.....................X........................... ........X................X
4.....................X................X.......... .......X................X

Next you could have the Superheroic scale based on 6 speeds. It would be like the current system, but basically cut in half.