Disadvantages Issues

[Istaran]

I just recently noticed something with Distinctive Features.

Per the rules, if a Distinctive Feature is a distinctive odor, it's worth -5 points because Smell is "Uncommonly-Used." This is factually incorrect; the sense of Smell is in constant use, and if someone has a noticeable and distinctive odor you're very likely to notice it before you see or hear the individual.

Character sheets with smell-related Distinctive Features (like the Skunk Ape from Vibora Bay) correctly omit this Modifier; it should be corrected for the rulebook, though.

I'd say to get the full value (rather than the -5) your distinctive feature vs smell should provide at least an extra +4 to PER checks to notice it. This is to offset the default -4 to smell PER checks for smell if it is not bought as Targeting.
You could alternately take the -5 and decline the +4 to PER checks for a scent that is distinctively different but won't usually be noticed by humans (typicaly normals have a 7- roll to notice it, not exactly likely) but will tip off most animals automatically and can be detected by others.

[BobGreenwade]

I had a brainstorm this morning about Physical Limitation, though probably the principle could be applied elsewhere.

5ER states: "If a character has a Power that directly counteracts his Physical Limitation, the GM may want to consider reducing the value of the Disadvantage (at the very least, the degree of impairment may need to be reduced)." My thought is, what if this was an explicit element to the Physical Limitation Disadvantage? If the character has a Power that partially compensates for the Limitation, it's worth -5 points; if the Power fully compensates, it's worth -10 points (but might still be worth something, since Powers can be Suppressed, Drained, and so forth).

Going a step beyond that, this could even be yet another application for putting Power Limitations on Disadvantages -- the amount of the Limitation represents how often, and by how much, the Power compensates for the Physical Limitation.

With a little extra thought, a similar mechanic could even be used to convert Dependences and Susceptibilities into Physical Limitations.

[Talon]

For Physical Limitation, I would rather just apply the existing categories (frequency and degree) taking into account the effects of the Power. "Can't Walk" might be Frequently, Fully for most people, but Infrequently, Fully if the character has Flight which works 6 days out of 7.

[Hugh Neilson]

I dislike the theory that having compensatory powers reduces the disadvantage cost without reducing the power's cost. You paid full freight for Spatial Awareness. Why does that mean you should save any less points from being Blind?

Selling back 5 points of PD generates 5 points even if you have a 30 PD Force Field, and selling back END isn't reduced because your powers are 0 END.

[The Main Man]

One thing that sometimes bothers me about Disadvantages is Frequency itself.

I think that Frequency should ultimately be in the GM's hands.

[Klaus Mogensen]

One thing that sometimes bothers me about Disadvantages is Frequency itself.

I think that Frequency should ultimately be in the GM's hands.
Which brings me back to my suggestion that most Disadvantages shouldn't give points up front, but provide 'hero points' when they come up. No need to assign a Frequency; the reward will always be proportional to how often the Disadvantage comes into play.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Which brings me back to my suggestion that most Disadvantages shouldn't give points up front, but provide 'hero points' when they come up. No need to assign a Frequency; the reward will always be proportional to how often the Disadvantage comes into play.

- Klaus

And I totally agree with this.:thumbup:

I also think that Characters should only be built on just "Base Points" and that "Disadvantages" should not generate Character points but that they instead generate HAP's in game-play.

[PhilFleischmann]

I dislike the theory that having compensatory powers reduces the disadvantage cost without reducing the power's cost. You paid full freight for Spatial Awareness. Why does that mean you should save any less points from being Blind?

Selling back 5 points of PD generates 5 points even if you have a 30 PD Force Field, and selling back END isn't reduced because your powers are 0 END.
Exactly! If I have -25 points for being blind, but I spend 25 points for a compensating sense, I've gained nothing, so why should I be penalized? And the same goes for all Physical Limitations. You "lose" the points already by having to spend points for the compensating powers that you wouldn't have to buy otherwise. It's already fair. Don't mess with it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Exactly! If I have -25 points for being blind, but I spend 25 points for a compensating sense, I've gained nothing, so why should I be penalized? And the same goes for all Physical Limitations. You "lose" the points already by having to spend points for the compensating powers that you wouldn't have to buy otherwise. It's already fair. Don't mess with it.
While I buy the argument that a compensating sense doesn't make Blind worth no points, there are other examples where this would be the case.

Let's say that a character has taken the Physical Limitation "No Legs". That's normally Fully, All the Time (25 points), plus you can buy back Running and Leaping for another 14 points; a total of 39 points.

Now, the character buys 6" Flight for 12 points. Suddenly there's very little limitation to not having legs. The character now gets 27 points net for something that only limits the character when his Flight is Drained or otherwise can't be used.

At the very least, "No Legs" should be downgraded to Infrequently, Fully (15 points + 14 for buy-back), but even this should only be allowed if Flight proves useless about every fourth encounter (~ an 8- roll).

- Klaus

[Talon]

Since you can buy back Running, perhaps the thing to do is to rate "No Legs" for the non-movement aspects only, which would reduce the cost past 15 most likely.

[Chris Goodwin]

A snake has No Legs, but it doesn't have 0" Running.

[AnotherSkip]

Yeah and If someone sees my Secret ID flying around they might just guess that I have SOME sort of metahuman powers......

[BobGreenwade]

I wonder... what if the structure for Disadvantages, instead of adding, multiplied the frequency and severity to get the value?

Let's take, for example, the three basic types of Disadvantage: Physical Limitation, Psychological Limitation, and Social Limitation. We can structure their values like so:


Value Frequency
1 Rare
2 Infrequent
3 Frequent
4 Very Frequent
5 Ubiquitous

Value Severity
1 Slight
2 Minor
3 Moderate
4 Major
5 Total

So for a few examples:

Anosmic (no sense of smell): Infrequent (2), Moderate (3) -- 6 points.

Blind: Very Frequent (4), Major (4) -- 16 points.

Does Not Understand Earth Culture: Frequent (3), Minor (2) -- 6 points.

Claustrophobic: Infrequent (2), Moderate (3) -- 6 points.

Dedicated To Justice: Very Frequent (4), Major (4) -- 16 points.

Hates Cats: Infrequent (2), Minor (2) -- 4 points.

Secret Identity: Frequent (3), Major (4) -- 12 points.

Slave: Very Frequent (4), Total (5) -- 20 points.

Other Disadvantages can use variations on that theme. For example, Enraged can add the Chance to Become and the Change to Recover, multiply by the frequency of circumstances, and then have a multiplier for going full-on Berserk:


Value Frequency
1 Rare
2 Infrequent
3 Frequent
4 Very Frequent
5 Ubiquitous

Value Chance To Become Enraged/Recover
1 8-/14-
2 11-/14- or 8-/11-
3 14-/14- or 11-/11- or 8-/8-
4 14-/11- or 11-/8-
5 14-/8-

Value State
1 Enraged
2 Berserk


This does yield a maximum value of 50 (and I haven't even explored the possibility of increasing rolls to 17- or "automatic"), but if a circumstance is around practically all the time that makes the character go full-on Berserk 90% of the time with only 25% of snapping out of it then it's probably worth that much anyway.

It does shift around some values for specific Disadvantages a bit, and of course YMMV on the actual designations (not just campaign to campaign but also character to character within a campaign), but I think this can be a good start.

[Vulcan]

Oh noes, more maths to scare the newbies! http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/angst.gif

On a serious note, that's a pretty good idea, Bob. I think it could work.

[Istaran]

And I totally agree with this.:thumbup:

I also think that Characters should only be built on just "Base Points" and that "Disadvantages" should not generate Character points but that they instead generate HAP's in game-play.

Exactly! If I have -25 points for being blind, but I spend 25 points for a compensating sense, I've gained nothing, so why should I be penalized? And the same goes for all Physical Limitations. You "lose" the points already by having to spend points for the compensating powers that you wouldn't have to buy otherwise. It's already fair. Don't mess with it.

I haven't entirely decided which side of this debate I'm on, but I think the HAP for disads idea has an interesting effect in this scenario. Even if we gave the character build points at creation and HAP when the disad comes up, the person with the compensating power is likely to get significantly less HAP than the person with uncompensated disads. For example, blind guy with active sonar: he gets HAP only when he gets in trouble because he can't discern colors or color variations (i.e. painted shapes and non-textured writing). He doesn't even get it for being unable to read if an ally is handy who can safely read aloud for him. If he had no targetting sense he would get HAP every time he makes or is targetted by an attack roll! Likewise flying torso boy (Bob Oblong's super alter-ego?) will get HAP whenever he needs to drive a standard vehicle, but not if an ally is handy who can reach the pedals. Of course if we do go with a pure HAP basis that also means your disads can easily become worthless if you have allies that can cover for you. Or else you get the kind of cheesy situation of getting HAP because an ally has to cover for you.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Of course if we do go with a pure HAP basis that also means your disads can easily become worthless if you have allies that can cover for you.
But shouldn't this be the case? How many games have you seen characters with a "poor" disad who aren't really disadvantaged because their richer teammates buy them the equipment they need?

With Hero Points, the player may decide his character is too proud to ask his teammates for aid in a certain situation, and hence get points. Or that he overcomes his pride, gets the aid, but no points. This is much better fodder for role-playing than a static up-front disad that the player easily can ignore unless the GM keeps reminding him.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

This point (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69248) opens another issue related to disadvantages. I suggest that, if we are moving to a "hero points for disad use" rather than "point savings for disads taken" model, the same should apply to followers, vehicles, bases, etc. Presumably, powers like Summon, Duplication, etc. must also be considered.

Under this model, I think the following need to be considered:

- what is the disad cap for such entities?

- does the influence of a Summoned creature's disad's also grant Hero Points?

- does use of such entities become a powerful tool in enhancing a character's ability to build up Hero Points? Should this be restricted in some manner?

- is it more effective to build your DNPC as a cheap follower with lots of disad's than taking him as a disad?

- is it more effective to take a disadvantage than a limitation? [eg. rather than, say, Cyclops putting a Limitation on his EB, he takes the Phys Lim "If visor/sunglasses removed, must be blind or fire EB at maximum power"] We often suggest a disadvantage rather than a fairly minor limitation. Will that still be the case, or will the disad's Hero Points be more lucrative than the limitation's point savings?

[The Main Man]

Of course if we do go with a pure HAP basis that also means your disads can easily become worthless if you have allies that can cover for you. Or else you get the kind of cheesy situation of getting HAP because an ally has to cover for you.

We usually read about the heroes overcoming obstacles and having Disadvantages grant HAP's in exchange for when they actually limit the character seems like a great way to express this.

As the credo goes, "A Disadvantage that does not Limit the character is worth no points."

This extends to the HAP scenario in which the credo becomes conditional.

They grant HAP's when the character actually is at a disadvantage but they won't when the character has some kind of help.

Your disads may be "worthless" but on the other hand isn't having a whole other character(s) to help you better than a few points to fudge some rolls?:)

"A friend in need..."

[BobGreenwade]

There's a discussion in the Characteristics thread about the NCM Disadvantage, and I recalled a couple of my ideas for making it a true Disadvantage.

First, when Adjustment Powers raise the Characteristics above the stated maximum, they have half effect.

Second, the character takes heroic options in combat. They're subject to Impairing and Disabling damage, do Knockdown instead of Knockback (or need an Advantage to do true Knockback), spend 1 END per 5 STR instead of per 10 STR, and so forth.

I'm sure other ideas will come to my mind, and others', but I thought I'd cross-post them here as the proper place to discuss the issue. :)

[The Main Man]

There's a discussion in the Characteristics thread about the NCM Disadvantage, and I recalled a couple of my ideas for making it a true Disadvantage.

First, when Adjustment Powers raise the Characteristics above the stated maximum, they have half effect.

Second, the character takes heroic options in combat. They're subject to Impairing and Disabling damage, do Knockdown instead of Knockback (or need an Advantage to do true Knockback), spend 1 END per 5 STR instead of per 10 STR, and so forth.

I'm sure other ideas will come to my mind, and others', but I thought I'd cross-post them here as the proper place to discuss the issue. :)
These sound like Physical Limitations to me but at the same time I think that having their values listed in the core book for those that would like to take them would be interesting.:thumbup:

[Hugh Neilson]

There's a discussion in the Characteristics thread about the NCM Disadvantage, and I recalled a couple of my ideas for making it a true Disadvantage.

First, when Adjustment Powers raise the Characteristics above the stated maximum, they have half effect.

Second, the character takes heroic options in combat. They're subject to Impairing and Disabling damage, do Knockdown instead of Knockback (or need an Advantage to do true Knockback), spend 1 END per 5 STR instead of per 10 STR, and so forth.

I'm sure other ideas will come to my mind, and others', but I thought I'd cross-post them here as the proper place to discuss the issue. :)

I'd be inclined to remove both the Adjustment Power issue and the "Doubled Cost" issue. It would then be a completely different disadvantage.

At a higher level, the character could be prohibited from having any ability which is not "normal human". Normal humans don't have a 75 STR, 29 DEX and 35 CON. They also don't generate energy blasts, create force fields and fly under their own power.

But if another character has the superhuman ability to augment a normal human, why not let him Aid the normal human into superhuman territory - that's not the normal human's ability.

[RDU Neil]

Q: Should we change the way Disadvantages reward you for taking/using them?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think we should. The way the HERO System is currently set up, every player character basically takes his full allotment of Disadvantages because, despite the fact that theoretically a Disadvantaged and a Disadvantage-less character should be equally effective, the truth is we all know that they’re not. The points you get from a Disadvantage buy you things you can use all the time, whereas even the most restrictive Disadvantage only affects a character some of the time.

This leads to some undesireable results. First, characters often tend to choose Disadvantages solely to get the points for them, not because they help to define the character and provide plot hooks for the GM (which to my mind is their true purpose). Second, characters often have to load themselves down with Disadvantages they don’t really want just to have enough points to be competitive with other characters, which makes them less fun to play. Third, to avoid these traps, characters often “metagame” the system to find Disadvantages that aren’t really all that restrictive.

I can see two possible solutions to this problem that appeal to me, one of which is pretty radical and the other of which is less so. The first is to take a page from many “modern” game designs and give characters something other than Character Points for Disadvantages. In this case, and using 5E point totals here, every Standard Superheroic character would just start out with a flat 350 Character Points, period, no need for any Disadvantages at all. However, if he took Disadvantages, and one of them came into play, he’d get something for that. What would he get? Well, assuming I incorporate the Hero Points rules into the core rules (see the “General Issues” thread), my thinking is that he’d get an extra Hero Point, usable only in that scenario, that scene, or for some other restricted period of time.


YES YES YES YES YES YES... a THOUSAND TIMES YES!

This would do so much to alter the thinking of Hero away from metagaming the system because I have to or feel like I'm challenged to... toward, "How can my character contribute to a good game, a great story, a fun experience!"

I totally think this should be implemented in some form or another.

Thank you for considering this.

[BobGreenwade]

But if another character has the superhuman ability to augment a normal human, why not let him Aid the normal human into superhuman territory - that's not the normal human's ability.There's something to that, but I'd still make it part of the Limitation. Generally I give a "hard maximum" of 20 extra points (before doubling) in stats above the stated max, figuring that spending that much extra effectively "buys off" the Disadvantage anyway. This principle could hold for Adjustment Powers used by the character himself, meaning the most he'd be penalized is 20 character points worth. For Adjustment Powers used on him by others, no penalty accrues.

[steamteck]

YES YES YES YES YES YES... a THOUSAND TIMES YES!

This would do so much to alter the thinking of Hero away from metagaming the system because I have to or feel like I'm challenged to... toward, "How can my character contribute to a good game, a great story, a fun experience!"

I totally think this should be implemented in some form or another.

Thank you for considering this.


Maybe as an alternate. I'm afraid it would be a complete deal breaker for me. I absolutely love the way they work now. Disadvantages allow use to really tailor the character and balance him/her out make an interesting character who shines in some ways but has Achilles heals and interesting quirks. The other way seems you real have to be a really dedicated to play that way. Lets cripple my character for a reward that comes up later . No thanks!

[Vulcan]

A "Hero Point" System wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me, although I think I would perfer to leave the rules as is.

I would want one more thing added to such a system, based on something from Spycraft's Hero Point-type system. If the GM ignores the disad for a set number of game sessions (it was set at 10 in Spycraft, and that sounds reasonable to me), then the character gets XP and the disad is considered 'paid off.'

That encourages GM's to use the disads, and gives the players something if the GM ignores their character's background. :D

[Klaus Mogensen]

Maybe as an alternate. I'm afraid it would be a complete deal breaker for me. I absolutely love the way they work now. Disadvantages allow use to really tailor the character and balance him/her out make an interesting character who shines in some ways but has Achilles heals and interesting quirks. The other way seems you real have to be a really dedicated to play that way. Lets cripple my character for a reward that comes up later . No thanks!
The way I would prefer it is that Disadvantages that limit a character's power (e.g. Susceptibility, Phys Lim and Vulnerability) should be worth Character Points, whereas Disadvantages that mainly are story hooks (e.g. DNPC, Hunted, Distinctive Features, Rival, and Psych Lim) should be awarded with Hero Points when they come into play.

I would also (as I have suggested before) rename the latter type as Background Traits and merge them with Perks. When you use such a trait to your advantage, you would have to pay a Hero Point, and when the trait intrudes in a negative function, you would get a Hero Point.

For instance, when you use a Contact or affiliation to an organisation to gain useful intel or equipment, you would pay a Hero Point, but when the Contact or organisations requires something of you, you gain a Hero Point.

Or if a character has the Distinctive Feature: "Beastlike" and this scares a little girl that he rescues, this could be worth a Hero Point if the player roleplays the character's sadness. However, if the character uses his looks as a bonus to a Presence Attack, he would have to pay a Hero Point (if he does this often, the GM may insist that he buys more PRE instead).

Or a Celebrity may spend a point to use his celebrity status to achieve something, and would get a point if he is recognized when wanting to be incognito, or if he is sued.

Skills that mainly are used as background flavor could also be Background Traits. Rather than spending X points on "Egyptology 18-", just write "A leading expert on ancient Egypt". If the character ever gets to use this in a non-flavor way, he must pay a Hero Point.

- Klaus

[RDU Neil]

The way I would prefer it is that Disadvantages that limit a character's power (e.g. Susceptibility, Phys Lim and Vulnerability) should be worth Character Points,

On this point, I would go even one step further. Such disads/limitations need to be divided between "mechanical" limitation (14- Activation, Reduced Penetration kind of thing) vs. "SFX" limitations (must be in water once an hour, Susceptibility to radiation, etc.)

Granted, I'm using more Limitations examples here vs. Disads, but I don't know of many Disads (in the traditional sense) focused on Powers. They are usually focused on the character... making them inherently "SFX" and not mechanical. I'd have a hard time thinking of mechanical Disads. Even the X2 Stun from X attack is usually from an SFX attack... not x2 From Energy Blasts, which is a mechanic. Disads that are strictly vs. a mechanic should be separated from disads vs. a SFX (hard radiation, ice attacks, whatever) which are Game Rule/Play experience level issues.

Then again... why Disads have even been called Disads is a question. Powers have Advantages and Limitations... why not Advantages and Disadvantages. Call Disads something else.

[BobGreenwade]

I've given some thought to the new Disadvantages chart I proposed a few days ago, and I think it'd work better to add 1 point to the frequency level (possibly with an additional level at 1 point):

Value Frequency
1 Very Rare
2 Rare
3 Infrequent
4 Frequent
5 Very Frequent
6 Ubiquitous

Value Severity
1 Trivial
2 Slight
3 Minor
4 Moderate
5 Major
6 Total
This would make Frequent and Moderate worth 16 points (4 x 4), which is in line with the current value of 15 points; and make Ubiquitous and Total worth 36 points, which is probably about what it should be worth if it's that extreme.

A "Caution" sign can be given for Trivial consequences, since it could be so easily abused -- a Ubiquitous Limitation with Trivial consequences would be just a constant, minor annoyance, and it can be as annoying to the GM and other players as it is to the character.

[Vulcan]

The way I would prefer it is that Disadvantages that limit a character's power (e.g. Susceptibility, Phys Lim and Vulnerability) should be worth Character Points, whereas Disadvantages that mainly are story hooks (e.g. DNPC, Hunted, Distinctive Features, Rival, and Psych Lim) should be awarded with Hero Points when they come into play.

I would also (as I have suggested before) rename the latter type as Background Traits and merge them with Perks. When you use such a trait to your advantage, you would have to pay a Hero Point, and when the trait intrudes in a negative function, you would get a Hero Point.

For instance, when you use a Contact or affiliation to an organisation to gain useful intel or equipment, you would pay a Hero Point, but when the Contact or organisations requires something of you, you gain a Hero Point.

Or if a character has the Distinctive Feature: "Beastlike" and this scares a little girl that he rescues, this could be worth a Hero Point if the player roleplays the character's sadness. However, if the character uses his looks as a bonus to a Presence Attack, he would have to pay a Hero Point (if he does this often, the GM may insist that he buys more PRE instead).

Or a Celebrity may spend a point to use his celebrity status to achieve something, and would get a point if he is recognized when wanting to be incognito, or if he is sued.

Skills that mainly are used as background flavor could also be Background Traits. Rather than spending X points on "Egyptology 18-", just write "A leading expert on ancient Egypt". If the character ever gets to use this in a non-flavor way, he must pay a Hero Point.

- Klaus

So what do I do if I don't want to depend on having a Hero Point available to use my contact/background skill/whatever at a relavent moment?

[Klaus Mogensen]

So what do I do if I don't want to depend on having a Hero Point available to use my contact/background skill/whatever at a relavent moment?
I can see three solutions to this:
1: You're allowed to go to negative Hero Points. Having negative Hero Points may have effects like Unluck.
2: You can pay character points to get a dedicated Hero Point. This can be used once per scene for a specific purpose, e.g. having a certain contact available.
3: If you want to always have a background skill ready, you should of course buy it as a real skill. Similarly, you could buy a "contact" as a skill: Get Information from Contact (or simply buy enough levels in Streetwise).

- Klaus

[Kdansky]

If you want to have the skill always available because you think it is important enough, then you should buy it normally with character points. But how often have you bought skills which you never used? If you did that, then you probably did not like it very much to spend points for that. If you didn't, then I am pretty sure you metagamed that. ;)

[BlackSword]

So what do I do if I don't want to depend on having a Hero Point available to use my contact/background skill/whatever at a relavent moment?
Buy it as normal. So your contact has the normal roll you have for contacts. Your background skills costs points, and your whatever, costs points so that it is consistent.

While in general I think I would prefer to have a characters background written out with zero cost background skills, in some genres I could see being able to use a (or multiple) Hero points to generate a relevant background story (or flashback) to help in a particular situation. "Say guys, I don't think I ever told you about the summer I spent in Italy studying the renassaince masters, I think I remember something about DaVinci putting hidden messages in his paintings..."

[The Main Man]

Quick One: "Unluck" isn't a word last I checked - make it "Bad Luck."

[AnotherSkip]

My spell checker doesn't like alot of the names of powers or Rp Conventions, 'and frankly My dear i dont give a dam'.

[The Main Man]

1. Speaking of spellcheck, it's spelled, "damn."

2. "Unlucky" and "Bad Luck" are words/terms and your spellchecker should recognise them (if that is going to be our litmus test).

"EB, RKA, d6, STR, etc." are not words so there is no reason for spellcheck to recognise them.

"Unluck," OTOH, isn't a word but merely an unnecessarily improperly termed opposite number to Luck.

I'll admit that it is a grammatical pet peeve but why have fake words when you can have real ones?

[AnotherSkip]

I dont give a Hoover.

Feel better? j/k

wp more later

[Hugh Neilson]

I'll admit that it is a grammatical pet peeve but why have fake words when you can have real ones?

Considering how much confusion gets caused when the real word used doesn't follow its dictionary meaning (energy blasts which don't act against energy defense; killing attacks which KO instead of killing; Teleport that must cross intervening space; extra dimensional movement that changes the world around you instead of moving you to a different dimension, Block defined as a SuperDodge), maybe we should go the other way and make up new words for EVERY mechanic.

"He hits for 17 Blorg points"

"I have 12 Blorg Defense, so I take 5. My Cromulance roll drops by 1".

Then again, perhaps not...

[The Main Man]

Hey wait a second I think we should give more credit to Blorg.

Now make your CROM roll.

[AnotherSkip]

werent you one of the guys against CROM Rolls in the discussion for 6th ed anyways?

[The Main Man]

werent you one of the guys against CROM Rolls in the discussion for 6th ed anyways?

No, no, no, no... I am in full support of CROM remaining in HERO.I mean, CROM, while it's roots lie in Swords and Sorcery literature, has a place in all of my games and I believe that CROM is so muchmore than a Talent or Perk if you know how to apply it.HERO 5e clearly states that CROM measures what is best in a PC's life: crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.The Power Blorg is another case, seeing as how poorly defined and underused the CHAR PRO is...

[BobGreenwade]

...'frankly My dear i dont give a dam'.1. Speaking of spellcheck, it's spelled, "damn."Unless you're a beaver with a major cavity problem. :D

[Lord Liaden]

Q: Should Age/Normal Characteristic Maxima be removed as a Disadvantage?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. They don’t really function quite like other Disadvantages, and really work better simply as “campaign definers” set by the GM rather than as Disadvantages.


For my Superheroic campaigns I've incorporated a Disadvantage I call "Mere Mortal," for the same cost as Normal Characteristic Maxima. Essentially, a Mere Mortal is an Heroic-level character in a Superheroic world. Any or all of the rules that distinguish characters in an Heroic game from those in a Super one can apply to a Mere Mortal, depending on what the GM chooses to use: NCM, more limited Pushing, attacks doing Knockdown instead of Knockback, LTE, Encumbrance, STR Minima, etc.; plus any optional rules a GM uses to make a normal person more restricted in their abilities, or easier to injure or kill, than a super.

I've found this to be a useful addition to qualitatively distinguish between normal people and superheroes/villains, both mechanically and for flavor; especially when the players want to feel that their characters are truly beyond normal humanity.

[Leafar the Lost]

I am fine with changing Disadvantages to Complications.

[BobGreenwade]

Here's an idea that I'd like to see opinions on.

What if the nature of a Distinctive Feature is subliminal? That is, people just react badly to the character, but don't necessarily know why.

One example is the warrior-mages in the Turakian Age (I forget their proper name, and I don't have the book with me right now). Everyone "just knows it" when someone is from that people group, and doesn't trust them.

Another is a theoretical phenomenon called the "Garbo Syndrome" (though Greta Garbo, despite being the one it's named for, probably didn't actually have it even if it does really exist). This is someone who's so determined to be left alone that he gives off a pheromone that prompts people to comply, to the point of ostracizing. Other people aren't aware of why they don't like to be around the person, they just know that they don't.

My thought is that a subliminal Distinctive Feature should be worth +5 points, because people can't allow for or resist its Pavlovian effects. If the character is aware of it and how it works, he might or might not be able to Conceal it (for example, if the character's skin gives off a flickering that causes anxiety in others, he could wear makeup or a face-covering mask to hide it), but unlike those that affect others consciously, they can't so easily resist it themselves.

Anyway, it's an idea I thought I'd just toss out there for consideration.

[SCUBA Hero]

For my Superheroic campaigns I've incorporated a Disadvantage I call "Mere Mortal," for the same cost as Normal Characteristic Maxima. Essentially, a Mere Mortal is an Heroic-level character in a Superheroic world. Any or all of the rules that distinguish characters in an Heroic game from those in a Super one can apply to a Mere Mortal, depending on what the GM chooses to use: NCM, more limited Pushing, attacks doing Knockdown instead of Knockback, LTE, Encumbrance, STR Minima, etc.; plus any optional rules a GM uses to make a normal person more restricted in their abilities, or easier to injure or kill, than a super.

I've found this to be a useful addition to qualitatively distinguish between normal people and superheroes/villains, both mechanically and for flavor; especially when the players want to feel that their characters are truly beyond normal humanity.Our group also has a 'Mere Mortal' NPC Disadvantage (Netzilla's creation, not mine) that any BODY taken after defenses is doubled.

Makes you very protective of your DNPCs, as well as overkill attacks on normals...

[Netzilla]

Our group also has a 'Mere Mortal' NPC Disadvantage (Netzilla's creation, not mine) that any BODY taken after defenses is doubled.

Makes you very protective of your DNPCs, as well as overkill attacks on normals...

Not really mine. I originally swiped it from someone on the old Champions Mailing List. Also, it makes them subject to the Wounding rules.