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