General Rules Issues

[mallet]

Reading through this what strikes me is that for a game that we are marketing as a toolkit, I don't see it being used as fully as it could be. Do any of the published settings that contain mental powers explicitly use a different list of Class of Minds than the example list in core book? Do any of them use a different Characteristic set than the one that is one the charactersheet in the book? Heck, does the published character sheet give you any places to add new Characteristics? (I'm actually asking about the games actually being sold as part of Hero System (Champions Universe, Terran Empire, Turakian Age, etc., and not stand alone games like PS238.)

If Hero System is a toolkit that enables us to create any kind of character that we want, and any kind of game we want, shouldn't there be some more diversity in the way that different games published actually play and have character's built? I'm not saying that there isn't already some diversity, and there shouldn't be plenty of games that are easy to port characters between. I'm just thinking that some showing in the published materials showing more of the versatility in the way that Hero can be used.



This is exactly what I have been thinking about recently.

I almost feel that the main 6th edition rules should not be simplified (changed sure, but not simplified) and maybe more generalized, and it should be an actual Toolkit for playing/making your own games.

Then settings, like Champions or Turakian Age, could be individual games using some of the toolkit rules that directly apply to the setting/genre.

Sure this would mean that the setting books would have to contain/reprint some rules, or at least a list of the specific rules being used for the setting and you would need different character sheets for each setting because each setting might use different stats, hit locations, etc... to best simulate the feel of the genre.

But it would make each game unique and geared towards the genre. The main rule book would be the reference book for all settings which in turn could have specific rules/stats/options/advantages/disadvantages

A horror setting would have a SAN stat. A Superhero game could drop the COM stat (since all super heroes are good looking anyways). A fantasy setting could have a MAGIC stat and get rid of END, or whatever.

The main Hero system could have system wide books (like the combat handbook) but each setting/game would have specific rule books.

I think this would work really well. Gamers/GM would only have to learn the rules specific to their setting and not all the other rules that wouldn't apply, making the game more accessible to the new buyer. It will allow each setting to grow in it's own unique and flavorful way (maybe even allowing other game writers to add books to each setting without "messing with" the main rules, since each setting would be it's own game. And offer up the chance for DOJ to make more books and hopefully more money.

This will also still allow diehard gamers the full Toolkit to build their own worlds and setting using whatever rules they wanted.


Anyways, I think something like that would be pretty cool and might help draw in new players.

[Old Man]

I really think this whole toolkit angle should be dropped.

I speak treason, I know, but the fact is that if you want to suck new players into the game then you can't expect them to buy more than one book. Especially if they've never played a FTF RPG before. I really think 4th ed did it right by printing Champions as Champions, rather than 5er + Supers Hero + Supers Setting. Publish self-contained game books to grow the player base, then tell them oh by the way, you can run any kind of campaign you want with this system, and here are the Ultimate books, here are the setting books, here are the campaign books if you want help with that.

Further down the path of treason: the Hero system isn't that versatile. Or more accurately, it isn't as versatile as it could be. Points costs are the limiting factor. It's silly to expect Hero to balance across supers and fantasy when force field costs 1/1 in both. There needs to be some way for points costs to be more easily adjusted to the genre.

[CTaylor]

Especially if they've never played a FTF RPG before.

The makers of D&D have never had a problem with this alleged phenomenon.

[PhilFleischmann]

A Superhero game could drop the COM stat (since all super heroes are good looking anyways).
Minor nitpick/reminder: COM is not necessarily irrelevent just because all superheroes are good looking. That would require supervillians, DNPCs, watchers, innocent bystanders, victims, potential victims, agents, etc., to all be good-looking.

It's silly to expect Hero to balance across supers and fantasy when force field costs 1/1 in both. There needs to be some way for points costs to be more easily adjusted to the genre.
How hard is it to adjust them now? The GM can just say, "For this Fantasy game, Force Field will cost 2/1." (or 1/2, or whatever) Easy to adjust as needed, just like "Spells cost 1/3" etc.

A separate General Rules point:

It should be made clear that there really is no real (game-world) difference between Powers, Skills, Characteristics, etc. The sections of the rulebook are there to keep the mechanics of the game organized. I'll use the generic term "abilities." The abilities that have similar mechanics are grouped together for convenience, but that doesn't mean that every Power is a power, and that every Skill is a skill, etc.

A guy could have Navigation 17-, and a bunch of AKs and CKs, and Well-Traveled. They might be skills, but they could also represent a power - that he has a GPS wired into his brain.

A guy might have a very high REC, that's a Characteristic, but it could just as easily represent a skill that the character has learned - breath control, focusing past pain, using muscles efficiently.

A guy with Telepathy, suffinciently limited (limited range, eye-contact required, perhaps extra time, et al.), could simply have a highly developed skill at reading body language.

And so forth.

Even Perks could be (small-p) powers or (small-s) skills.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Minor nitpick/reminder: COM is not necessarily irrelevent just because all superheroes are good looking. That would require supervillians, DNPCs, watchers, innocent bystanders, victims, potential victims, agents, etc., to all be good-looking.
Not at all - there just wouldn't be a characteristic to quantify their looks. Just say "this guy is ugly" and leave it at that.

- Klaus

[Old Man]

The makers of D&D have never had a problem with this alleged phenomenon.

D&D has a much larger player base with which to teach new players. Those D&D players that start from scratch also benefit from beginner material that is frankly better executed than anything I have seen out of Hero.

[Old Man]

How hard is it to adjust them now? The GM can just say, "For this Fantasy game, Force Field will cost 2/1." (or 1/2, or whatever) Easy to adjust as needed, just like "Spells cost 1/3" etc.

A separate General Rules point:

It should be made clear that there really is no real (game-world) difference between Powers, Skills, Characteristics, etc. The sections of the rulebook are there to keep the mechanics of the game organized. I'll use the generic term "abilities." The abilities that have similar mechanics are grouped together for convenience, but that doesn't mean that every Power is a power, and that every Skill is a skill, etc.

You know, this may be impossible, but to me it'd simplify things a lot if most or all abilities were costed the same. If all characteristics cost 2/pt and all skills and powers cost 5/die, it would require a fairly serious redefinition of all of them, but it would greatly simplify character creation. Then it would be much easier to implement a campaign adjustment worksheet that adjusts costs based on the setting; you would hand players a list that says these powers cost +1/die, these cost -1, and these others are just banned.

[Markdoc]

You know, this may be impossible, but to me it'd simplify things a lot if most or all abilities were costed the same. If all characteristics cost 2/pt and all skills and powers cost 5/die, it would require a fairly serious redefinition of all of them, but it would greatly simplify character creation. Then it would be much easier to implement a campaign adjustment worksheet that adjusts costs based on the setting; you would hand players a list that says these powers cost +1/die, these cost -1, and these others are just banned.

You know, thinking about it, I don't hate that idea as much I thought I would. It'd require quite a lot of work on the back end, but if it could be done, it's simplify the customising the game for new players more than anything else I've seen suggested.

cheers, Mark

[BlackSword]

You know, this may be impossible, but to me it'd simplify things a lot if most or all abilities were costed the same. If all characteristics cost 2/pt and all skills and powers cost 5/die, it would require a fairly serious redefinition of all of them, but it would greatly simplify character creation. Then it would be much easier to implement a campaign adjustment worksheet that adjusts costs based on the setting; you would hand players a list that says these powers cost +1/die, these cost -1, and these others are just banned.
I would be behind such a move. I agree there would be a lot of work to get to that point, but I think streamlining the cost structure would be beneficial.

If you want to streamline even further, advantages and disadvantages can be applied per dice, so +1/4 might be +1/die, -1/4 might be -1/die.

[Old Man]

If you want to streamline even further, advantages and disadvantages can be applied per dice, so +1/4 might be +1/die, -1/4 might be -1/die.

That's an awesome idea. It's so radical that I'm not sure you could call it Hero any more. But it does get rid of that terrifying fractional math.

Furthermore, you could redefine the cost of everything to 10 or 12/die and have a really nice fine granularity built in.

[SteveZilla]

I really think this whole toolkit angle should be dropped.

I agree, but for a different reason. It's hard enough for me to come up with a game world (or just a good city), and it's full population. Not to mention trying to make a coherent plot instead of "which Bad Guy do we smack around this week?". I don't want to have to make that a two-step process by first *building* the system that I then use to *build* the game.

It's like when you need to build a house, but are given a Big Box Of Parts and told, "Make your own tools, *then* make the house". TMW (Too Much Work).

I think there should be a baseline build of the rules that is easily useable (like 5ER has), and *then* provide the toolkit to modify that baseline if desired.

[Old Man]

Exactly. I have so little free time I shouldn't even be posting here let alone creating a vibrant campaign out of nothing. On top of that, too little value is assigned to the idea of shared experiences. So many of us have cool stories about how we handled Tomb of Horrors, right? Or Ravenloft or Against the Giants? The closest Hero analogy would be Island of Dr. D. There needs to be more shared source material like that, that all Hero gamers can relate to.

[CTaylor]

D&D has a much larger player base with which to teach new players.

They didn't start that way. I agree that we Hero needs better starting player help (a player's handbook style book without all the nitty gritty stuff for GMs would be a start, a website that helps people understand how to play hero better, with a few online videos would also be a big help), but I don't agree that having several books somehow daunts people or chases them away.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If you want to streamline even further, advantages and disadvantages can be applied per dice, so +1/4 might be +1/die, -1/4 might be -1/die.
That's essentially how Mutants & Masterminds does it.

I do see a problem with limitations done this way: limitations become worth more the more you have. E.g., once the cost per die has been reduced to 2, an additional "-1/4" limitation will cut the cost in half.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

D&D has a much larger player base with which to teach new players. Those D&D players that start from scratch also benefit from beginner material that is frankly better executed than anything I have seen out of Hero.

No argument there. The 'intro' to HERO is usually along the lines of:

<THUD>

"That's the basic rulebook!?"http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/angst.gif

Once they actually read through it (as opposed to skimming it) it's not as bad as it looks. But it can be intimidating to a new player.

[Vulcan]

You know, thinking about it, I don't hate that idea as much I thought I would. It'd require quite a lot of work on the back end, but if it could be done, it's simplify the customising the game for new players more than anything else I've seen suggested.

cheers, Mark

Again, agreed. I don't think I actually like the idea, mind you, but like Markdoc I find I don't hate it as much as I would have thought.

[CTaylor]

OK here's the basic changes I think could be made to create a 6th edition:

-Go to roll high consistently - not necessary, but people seem to like it and mathematically it doesn't change anything. Just requires a lot of changes from 14- to 7+ and so on.
-Shift from the 2 meter hex to the 10 foot square - optional but it is easier to work the math out and would fit more source material with less work.
-Change the main book to two books: a smaller, player-friendly book without the deep notes and GM tips on how to run things and more complex details on combat (such as the optional rules), and the second book with all the more complex stuff, lots of "how to use Hero Toolkit" tips, combat complexities, optional rules, and so on.
-Some of the minor changes mentioned in the sections here, buried among the arguments (hopefully Steve won't be too daunted by the number of pages).
-New books with fancy color artwork inside

That alone would be enough for a new edition in my eyes, I'm sure I missed a few possibilities, but you want to walk the line between "enough change to justify a new edition" and "lets rebuild the game"

[BobGreenwade]

No argument there. The 'intro' to HERO is usually along the lines of:

<THUD>

"That's the basic rulebook!?"http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/angst.gif

Once they actually read through it (as opposed to skimming it) it's not as bad as it looks. But it can be intimidating to a new player.I think we may have found the perfect new subtitle for the rules. Instead of saying, "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit," it can say, "It's really not as bad as it looks." ;)

[Old Man]

"The Gamer's Really Good Multitool".

[SteveZilla]

OK here's the basic changes I think could be made to create a 6th edition:

-Shift from the 2 meter hex to the 10 foot square - optional but it is easier to work the math out and would fit more source material with less work.

I definitely disagree with this one. I think metric is a strength of Hero System and changing to Imperial would be a step in the wrong direction.


-Change the main book to two books: a smaller, player-friendly book without the deep notes and GM tips on how to run things and more complex details on combat (such as the optional rules), and the second book with all the more complex stuff, lots of "how to use Hero Toolkit" tips, combat complexities, optional rules, and so on.

I agree, though I think it could be split along the lines of a "Rules For Building Characters" book, and a "Rules For Running A Game" book.


-New books with fancy color artwork inside


This might raise the price of the books excessively, though it would make them (and thus the system) more attractive to new people.

[CTaylor]

I left off at least one:

-Add in hero points as a specific part of the rules, based on disadvantages, as has been discussed in the Disads section of this board.

[Vulcan]

OK here's the basic changes I think could be made to create a 6th edition:

-Go to roll high consistently - not necessary, but people seem to like it and mathematically it doesn't change anything. Just requires a lot of changes from 14- to 7+ and so on.

That could work for combat. Now what about skills, specifically really high skill rolls. A 20- skill roll becomse -2+?

-Shift from the 2 meter hex to the 10 foot square - optional but it is easier to work the math out and would fit more source material with less work.

The existing HEROs players are used to dealing with the metric system for the game. And (from an American point of view) the rest of the world uses the metric system all the time. So conversion to 'our' system of measurements seems... a step backwards, somehow.

-Change the main book to two books: a smaller, player-friendly book without the deep notes and GM tips on how to run things and more complex details on combat (such as the optional rules), and the second book with all the more complex stuff, lots of "how to use Hero Toolkit" tips, combat complexities, optional rules, and so on.

I really, really don't like this idea. I have always liked the idea that HEROs is a 'buy one book and the rest is optional' system.

On the flip side, I can see how the 'one big book' approach intimidates new players... darn it.

-Some of the minor changes mentioned in the sections here, buried among the arguments (hopefully Steve won't be too daunted by the number of pages).
-New books with fancy color artwork inside

That could really, really raise the price of the book - and when coupled to a two-book release...

That alone would be enough for a new edition in my eyes, I'm sure I missed a few possibilities, but you want to walk the line between "enough change to justify a new edition" and "lets rebuild the game"[/quote]

Interesting suggestions... Not sure I like them, but interesting....

[Old Man]

To go to "all high" with skills, you define your skill level as a flat modifier to which 3d6 will be added. Then you compare the result to a target number that reflects the difficulty of the task.

[CTaylor]

yeah just a + to the roll would work better than 7+ I guess. I was trying to make the switch over easier but Vulcan pointed out the potential flaw. I don't particularly want all those changes, but I could live with them and they'd probably attract new buyers and players easier while having the least impact on the game as it exists. The new hero books supposedly are all going to have color interiors anyway, so that suggestion isn't my idea. I just was trying to lay down some basic concepts on what would be sufficient to justify a new edition without throwing out main ideas like figured stats, KAs being a different mechanic than normal attacks, and so on.

[steamteck]

I have to chirp in the the current way things are rolled is one the things I REALLY REALLY like about HERO. and if it weren't something I can house rule back right in 2 seconds would be one of my "dealbreakers" I don't see the need to mess with it.

[Old Man]

I think all the ideas outlined here amount to the same thing, i.e. roll 3d6 and try to get over/under a certain number on the dice. Not hard to switch out. The roll low/roll high thing is a bit inconsistent, but it doesn't bother me either way really.

[CTaylor]

I prefer leaving the rolls as is, but at the same time it wouldn't break my heart or make me avoid 6th edition if it was made consistently roll high, and that does seem to matter to at least some potential players.

[prestidigitator]

I use a roll-high system when I run games for players who are primarily D&D players (most of which I described in http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29611 though I have a few more details in the house rules document I use). It is very simple to convert the normal roll-low to a roll-high. Whichever way the "main" rules go, I'd be happy with a sidebar that describes the other method, and then leave it at that.

The only thing that gets in the way of this is that there are a few places in the 5th edition rules that talk about making the roll "by half" (e.g. if you need a 16-, making it by half would be rolling an 8-). That doesn't translate to a roll-high system, and I would suggest replacing it with something like "make it by 5" (or some other N) for either rolling method instead.

[prestidigitator]

I'm very much opposed to splitting the main rulebook into two (or more). As is, it really is a system in a book. If you are willing to provide the source material, everything else is there for you.

To, "That is the basic rulebook?!" I would reply, "No. That is the complete and only rulebook. You could just read chapters 1 through N until you are ready to run a game if you want, but it won't hurt to skim or read the rest."

[PhilFleischmann]

The only thing that gets in the way of this is that there are a few places in the 5th edition rules that talk about making the roll "by half" (e.g. if you need a 16-, making it by half would be rolling an 8-). That doesn't translate to a roll-high system, and I would suggest replacing it with something like "make it by 5" (or some other N) for either rolling method instead.
It's a bit more complicated, but not that tough to translate. 16- would become 5+, "half" 8- would become 13+. "Half" of "X or more" is 21-(21-X)/2 or more, or 10.5 + X/2 or more. "Half" of 5+ comes out to 10.5 + 2.5 = 13+. "Half" of 11+ comes to 10.5 + 5.5 = 16+.

Here's a table for the Roll High "critical successes":
Normal "Half"
3+ 12+
4+ 13+
5+ 13+
6+ 14+
7+ 14+
8+ 15+
9+ 15+
10+ 16+
11+ 16+
12+ 17+
13+ 17+
14+ 18+
15+ 18+
16+ 19+
17+ 19+
18+ 20+

[Old Man]

"No. That is the complete and only rulebook. You could just read chapters 1 through N until you are ready to run a game if you want, but it won't hurt to skim or read the rest."

Too bad it still costs the full $80 to get the chapters you want...

[nexus]

Would two color hardbacks be cheaper though? I guess saves people money that don't want to GM but anyone that wants to do both had to get both.

[PhilFleischmann]

Too bad it still costs the full $80 to get the chapters you want...

$80! :eek::sick::no::tonguewav:tsk::bmk::fear:

What the heck? It's not like filling up my gas tank!

Seriously, that trumps any rules issue. The biggest mistake DOJ could possibly make is to make the book so huge that it costs more than about $50 at the most.

[Chris Goodwin]

In my opinion, the first book should be the Basic book. Beyond that, further expansion should be through "ultimate" style books; every word written on Skills is superfluous with the existence of The Ultimate Skill. There really should have been an analogous book for Powers under Fifth Edition; every word written on Powers is superfluous with such a book. Same goes for things like combat; the Book of Combat should include the full combat rules along with all of the wowie-zowie options and the Martial Arts extras.

Why write two 300-page books, one of them containing 75 pages on Skills, when you're just going to write another 300 pages on Skills? (Or have already done so....)

[Hugh Neilson]

In my opinion, the first book should be the Basic book. Beyond that, further expansion should be through "ultimate" style books; every word written on Skills is superfluous with the existence of The Ultimate Skill. There really should have been an analogous book for Powers under Fifth Edition; every word written on Powers is superfluous with such a book. Same goes for things like combat; the Book of Combat should include the full combat rules along with all of the wowie-zowie options and the Martial Arts extras.

Why write two 300-page books, one of them containing 75 pages on Skills, when you're just going to write another 300 pages on Skills? (Or have already done so....)

So what's in the basic book once we take out skills, powers and combat? Not a playable game, I think.

[nexus]

In my opinion, the first book should be the Basic book. Beyond that, further expansion should be through "ultimate" style books; every word written on Skills is superfluous with the existence of The Ultimate Skill. There really should have been an analogous book for Powers under Fifth Edition; every word written on Powers is superfluous with such a book. Same goes for things like combat; the Book of Combat should include the full combat rules along with all of the wowie-zowie options and the Martial Arts extras.

Why write two 300-page books, one of them containing 75 pages on Skills, when you're just going to write another 300 pages on Skills? (Or have already done so....)

Just to make sure I'm not misreading you. Are you proposing that the basic book not include skills, powers, etc and those be included in a series of books to be released later?

So what's in the basic book once we take out skills, powers and combat? Not a playable game, I think.

Its also making allot of supplements mandatory instead of optional, if I'm understanding his proposal correctly. Hypothetical Hero Player A doesn't need "The Ultimate Skill" or any of the ultimate books for example, They are optional expansions. But it skills aren't mentioned at all in the "corebook" it becomes a mandatory additional purchase that you have wait for before you can start playing.

[AnotherSkip]

Hmm if Steve did take out alot of the optional rules it could slim down the book. Heck we could cut out 12 pages + if we kept the index online!

However from an ADD prespective i have to say two books is a disservice to anyone with any sort of learning disad. especially if steve was gonna save space by referenceing one book to another.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So what's in the basic book once we take out skills, powers and combat? Not a playable game, I think.
Agreed. I would like to see the main book have all the rules you need to play all genres. The 'splatbooks' should simply be discussions of how to use the tules for various styles of games, possibly with a few optional expansions on the general rules.

-Klaus

[SteveZilla]

It's a bit more complicated, but not that tough to translate. 16- would become 5+, "half" 8- would become 13+. "Half" of "X or more" is 21-(21-X)/2 or more, or 10.5 + X/2 or more. "Half" of 5+ comes out to 10.5 + 2.5 = 13+. "Half" of 11+ comes to 10.5 + 5.5 = 16+.

Here's a table for the Roll High "critical successes":
Normal "Half"
3+ 12+
4+ 13+
5+ 13+
6+ 14+
7+ 14+
8+ 15+
9+ 15+
10+ 16+
11+ 16+
12+ 17+
13+ 17+
14+ 18+
15+ 18+
16+ 19+
17+ 19+
18+ 20+

I presume this is all dependent upon using s 3d6 roll -- which means that if 6th does happen to go to something different, this would have to be recalculated.

[Chris Goodwin]

Just to make sure I'm not misreading you. Are you proposing that the basic book not include skills, powers, etc and those be included in a series of books to be released later?

No.

So what's in the basic book once we take out skills, powers and combat? Not a playable game, I think.

The point is to put as much info in Basic as is currently in Sidekick, to make it playable. You need to provide something to make it a playable game, but the point is to minimize the redundant work and repetition of verbiage and resources.

Basic is going to be the equivalent of Sidekick. I'm assuming it's going to have approximately the same page count and approximately the same level of detail.

Yes, with the Ultimate Skill, even the 15 pages (or whatever) of Skills in Sidekick/Basic are redundant, but that's probably necessary to be able to play the game with just Basic.

What I'm proposing: instead of having Basic, a 300 page book of Character Creation (much of which will be made redundant by multiple Ultimate books) and a 300 page book of Combat and Campaigning (much of which will be made redundant by multiple Ultimate books) and multiple Ultimate books, I'd rather see Basic, a book of Ultimate Skills, a book of Ultimate Powers, (maybe) a book of Ultimate Disadvantages, a book of Ultimate Combat, an "ultimate" book of basic campaigning, and so forth.

[CTaylor]

So what's in the basic book once we take out skills, powers and combat? Not a playable game, I think.

I should think the first book would have the basic descriptions of combat, the skill and powers (talent characteristics, etc); basically everything you need to make a character and play the game. The more indepth explanations, optional rules, tips on running a game and so on would go in the GM book (you know, like how D&D does it).

[steamteck]

the two book format makes me much less interested. I find the all in one book much more appealing than the D20/Traveler multi basic books for different aspects. Much less easy to use for me.

[Old Man]

I'd much rather see self-contained game books published. The original Fantasy Hero was what, 128 pages? Complete? And this approach would help move away from the "universal system toolkit" silliness too.

[Vulcan]

No.



The point is to put as much info in Basic as is currently in Sidekick, to make it playable. You need to provide something to make it a playable game, but the point is to minimize the redundant work and repetition of verbiage and resources.

Basic is going to be the equivalent of Sidekick. I'm assuming it's going to have approximately the same page count and approximately the same level of detail.

Yes, with the Ultimate Skill, even the 15 pages (or whatever) of Skills in Sidekick/Basic are redundant, but that's probably necessary to be able to play the game with just Basic.

What I'm proposing: instead of having Basic, a 300 page book of Character Creation (much of which will be made redundant by multiple Ultimate books) and a 300 page book of Combat and Campaigning (much of which will be made redundant by multiple Ultimate books) and multiple Ultimate books, I'd rather see Basic, a book of Ultimate Skills, a book of Ultimate Powers, (maybe) a book of Ultimate Disadvantages, a book of Ultimate Combat, an "ultimate" book of basic campaigning, and so forth.

If the core 6E book only provides rules on the level of sidekick, it will very likely cease to be of any value to experienced players (I certainly won't pay money for that level of rules). And frankly, the experienced players are your core audience. Loose them, I can guarentee you won't gain enough new players to make it up. A sample conversation:

Newbie: "So what do you think of the new HERO System?

Old Hand: "Wait for the expansions, the core book isn't worth it."

[SteveZilla]

What I'm proposing: instead of having Basic, a 300 page book of Character Creation (much of which will be made redundant by multiple Ultimate books) and a 300 page book of Combat and Campaigning (much of which will be made redundant by multiple Ultimate books) and multiple Ultimate books, I'd rather see Basic, a book of Ultimate Skills, a book of Ultimate Powers, (maybe) a book of Ultimate Disadvantages, a book of Ultimate Combat, an "ultimate" book of basic campaigning, and so forth.

How about The Ultimate Character? ;) It could roll together The Ultimate Power, Ultimate Skill, and Ultimate Disads! :D

I do think that having an all-in-one book can be beneficial. Perhaps if there were a "Super Sidekick" book as well as a core book. Like Sidekick, only more complete in terms of character creation.

[BobGreenwade]

How about The Ultimate Character? ;) It could roll together The Ultimate Power, Ultimate Skill, and Ultimate Disads! :DYou guys are aware that Hero Games already publishes the 400-page Character Creation Handbook, aren't you? :confused:

[SteveZilla]

You guys are aware that Hero Games already publishes the 400-page Character Creation Handbook, aren't you? :confused:

Oops. I forgot to mention that I was obliquely(?) referring to 5ER. ;)

I don't have the Character Creation Handbook -- does it add anything significant over having 5ER?

[AnotherSkip]

How about The Ultimate Character? ;) It could roll together The Ultimate Power, Ultimate Skill, and Ultimate Disads! :D



I think we have enough around here on THESE boards without worrying about having a book named that!

*Calls a character witness to the stand*
"your honor, he is a character!"
*witness leaves the stand*

[SteveZilla]

I think we have enough around here on THESE boards without worrying about having a book named that!

*Calls a character witness to the stand*
"your honor, he is a character!"
*witness leaves the stand*

Well, how about The Ultimate Min-Maxing Munchkin Build?

It'll sell like hotcakes!

:D

[Vulcan]

Oh,yeah, that's just what we need http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif .

[AnotherSkip]

thats okay the first person to show up using that to build his character will see just what can happen when i pull the gloves off.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I really like the single book aspect of HERO. Releasing things like Ultimate skill is fine, but I'd prefer the core book to be a single integrated gaming system.

[Chris Goodwin]

To argue with myself, who wants to pull out a 300 page book of Skills when building my character?

To argue the other way, when you're building your character, who needs 30 pages of Skill descriptions when 10 will do?

[Vulcan]

With as many skills as there are in HEROs, I think 30 pages are something of a necessity - unless we're going to use a 2-point font and issue a magnifying glass with the book...

[Old Man]

That's why we'd be better off with genre-specific releases. Champions characters don't really need Riding and Fantasy Hero characters don't really need Computer Operation.

[James Gillen]

Unless you're a Gnome Engineer.

jg

[Vulcan]

Perhaps, but in my opinion having everything in one book has been one of the HERO System's major strengths. You don't need to buy a bunch of other books to play HEROs, in whichever genre you choose. In fact, many players choose NOT to buy any other books and just let the GM get them...


Well. From a marketing standpoint that means they should split the basic rules up as much as possible. However, I would be horribly disappointed if they did (perhaps to the point of not buying 6th, or at least not the 6th 'core book that isn't').

[Talon]

OK, clearly I picked the wrong time to start a new relationship and skip the Hero boards for a while. :)

I'm posting some stuff here without having read the 71-freaking-page-thread, so apologies for undoubtedly re-hashing old stuff. (Some sort of summary/re-creation of thread might be nice!) I will be reading through, promise!

General issue: The mechanics-level of Hero is very nice, but leads to a lot of complexity in character sheets (especially for particularly large vehicles or complicated monsters). I have long thought that some sort of optional abstraction layer would help with this. For example, a GM could define "Nerve Poison" as being a particular combination of CON Drain NND, Gradual effect, etc., etc., and write that construct down once somewhere in a reference. Then, monster descriptions just need to say "Nerve Poison 3d6". The character sheet becomes easier and the mechanics don't change. This would make the game more approachable, while still permitting people to get as complicated as they want. A given genre book could define a number of different effects like this to give players and GMs a sense of what effects are common in the world.

General issue: The rules should cover situations that come up frequently in gaming sessions. For example, if someone wants to climb a cliff, modifiers should be in the book for a reasonable range of climbing surfaces. Printing the modifiers gives everyone a shared sense of what is possible.

General issue: Duplicate rules should be removed. "There are no sacred cows"; this is the time to clean up all the extra stuff that has accumulated over the years. Things should work the same for characters/objects, etc., as much as possible. (PD/ED vs DEF; Armor/Force Field)

General issue: Heroic campaigns should be easy. Just because Hero is a points system doesn't mean that the game (and character sheets!) can't support inventory, weights, money, and other things that are staples of heroic games.

General issue: MAPS!!!!! I know there are reasons, but Hero production values are a bit behind the curve, and adding stuff like maps would help a ton. Especially if you are looking to appeal to a broader audience.

Time to start reading. :)

[Klaus Mogensen]

That's why we'd be better off with genre-specific releases. Champions characters don't really need Riding and Fantasy Hero characters don't really need Computer Operation.
One thing I've always liked with Hero is the ease with which you can make cross-genre campaigns or campaigns that don't conform to any traditional genre. You lose that if the rules are spread among several genre books.

I would prefer a core book with all the rules needed to run games in any conceivable genre, but little genre-specific stuff, and then have genre books that discuss how to do various traditional genres, with examples of how to build appropriate powers and items.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

That's why we'd be better off with genre-specific releases. Champions characters don't really need Riding and Fantasy Hero characters don't really need Computer Operation.

Ermmm having characters with riding could be very useful in a Superheroic campaign, what with giant monsters and robots, telling the GM you want to use your riding roll as a complimentary roll to your dex check for staying on the opponet is definately feasable.

[Chris Goodwin]

That's why we'd be better off with genre-specific releases. Champions characters don't really need Riding and Fantasy Hero characters don't really need Computer Operation.

Ermmm having characters with riding could be very useful in a Superheroic campaign, what with giant monsters and robots, telling the GM you want to use your riding roll as a complimentary roll to your dex check for staying on the opponet is definately feasable.

And does Computer Operation mean you can operate a computer, or does it mean you can operate a Computer (big-C)?

Who says there's not some Fantasy construct out there that isn't defined as a Computer?

[BobGreenwade]

And does Computer Operation mean you can operate a computer, or does it mean you can operate a Computer (big-C)?

Who says there's not some Fantasy construct out there that isn't defined as a Computer?There's also stuff like The Atlantean Age and the Thundarr-inspired setting (I forget the given title) in Post-Apocalyptic Hero... granted, these are fairly obscure, but they do exist.

And in at least one fantasy setting I've created and run, the development of magic spells required a Skill based on Computer Programming.

[Vulcan]

Complete with a Spell-check program, I assume?;)

<various groans from the readers> Thank you, thank you!

[Talon]

OK, read the whole thread now. Where's my medal? :)

Q: Should we change the type of dice used?

No, for a couple reasons:

-- d6s are "normal" dice; any other kind potentially turns new players away
-- other people have pointed out that you can achieve most mathematical goals without switching dice type
-- d6s are traditional

Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?

I think that an overriding goal for 6th Edition should be to consolidate parts of the rules that do similar things in different ways. Even if each sub-system is individually easy to understand, they add to the size and complexity of the rules.

OCV/DCV is calculated one way, skill modifiers are calculated another way. While the rolls are similar, they are not quite the same...and should be.

Damage is calculated in a couple different ways (normal and KA being the big ones). I'd like to see KAs added up the same way as normal attacks, but applied against different defenses.

As for the "roll high/roll low" discussion, I think unifying other parts of the system are more important. Each method has ups and downs. Roll high probably does encourage more open-endedness, but I've found that "roll low" overemphasizes your skill roll (most rolls are done with a -0).

There has been a lot of interesting discussion on using different numbers of dice (or types of dice) to add granularity to the system. I think that the best thing to do would be for Steve to identify a more specific goal in terms of what he would like to improve.

Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?

Probably, it's a bit confusing and anyone who prefers the current system won't have a problem converting back to inches. In any event, paying more attention to facing and turn modes would be a good thing (but I guess there's a thread on movement already...).

Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?

My biggest problem with metric is that it makes fantasy games feel less fantastic. In the grand scheme of things I don't care a whole lot.

Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?

I would make them consistent. If there was a way to use one rounding rule in all circumstances I would say go for it, but I don't think that's possible.

Failing that, I would clarify the rounding and use consistent terminology to make clear which rounding methods are used in which circumstances.

Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?

No, but I think that some revisiting might be worthwhile. For example, the concept of the GM building "Metapowers" with advantages and limitations pre-figured to give a new Base Cost might be something to promote. Also, other people have mentioned Advantage Happy Syndrome (lots of advantages on a low Base Point power produces a power that is too effective a lot of the time).

Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?

I think some variant of the FH Absolute Effects rule (with specific examples; see below under "Guidance") is a fine idea.

Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?

Sounds like a good idea.

Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?
...
Similarly, I want to emphasize early in the 6E rulebook that GMs shouldn’t stress about making characters pay points for things that don’t really have any impact on the campaign. If you want your character to be an expert on Italian literature, just write down KS: Italian Literature 17- for 0 points — when is that ever likely to have any effect on the game? Even some standard Skills, like Navigation, probably only need to be paid for in certain types of campaigns. Bringing this issue to everyone’s attention early on should effectively counteract the idiotic and ignorant arguments we sometimes see about “you have to buy chairs with Character Points.”

Yes, good idea (in some form).

Other items:

The number one thing I would like to see in 6th Edition is guidance. Hero has a lot of options, and while it's good to have options, it's also very overwhelming. 6th Edition should do a lot of work to tell people the benefits and drawbacks of different options, and should work to eliminate options that don't have many benefits, so that it's easier to create a campaign or character.

The "Class of Minds" rule is a great example of this. It's presented and then immediately all-but-rescinded by a comment that all PCs are human unless the GM rules otherwise. The rule is intended to provide "flavor" and "options"...but there is no statement of how to achieve this. Unless a specific benefit is stated, the option should be relegated to a sourcebook or removed entirely.

Skills should have modifiers (or target numbers) listed for common tasks so GMs know how to use them.

The FH Absolute Effects rule should have some suggested uses (for different genres) so GMs have a starting point on how to use the rule.

Random thought
Playtest removing the "attack ends your action" rule.

Final thought
HERO should be a toolkit, but it should also provide a "higher layer" so that people who don't want to mess with the toolkit can take a finished product (sourcebook, spell, monster, etc.) and use it without having to delve into the detailed mechanics. That would make the system much more approachable.

[Vulcan]

Ahh... we tried the 'attack then move' option... speedsters become CRAZY effective. They attack, then end their move either out of sight, or with high range penalties to hit them (on top of generally high DCV's to boot). Energy projectors with lots of movement also get unbalancing, since they get to shoot at closer range, then move away, again gaining range penalties to shoot at them. Pure HTH combatants (aside from speedsters) have a hard time competing.

Doing this would nessessitate a large increase in (at least doubling) the cost of movement. I don't think this is really our best option.

[PhilFleischmann]

One thing I've always liked with Hero is the ease with which you can make cross-genre campaigns or campaigns that don't conform to any traditional genre. You lose that if the rules are spread among several genre books.

I would prefer a core book with all the rules needed to run games in any conceivable genre, but little genre-specific stuff, and then have genre books that discuss how to do various traditional genres, with examples of how to build appropriate powers and items.
Exactly! Just like I don't want the system to define a finite number of character classes to choose from, or a finite number of races, etc., I also don't want the system to define a finite number of genres or settings. HERO should let you do what you want, not just with characters, but including inventing your own genres.

[Vulcan]

Agreed. If the basic rules are not a complete toolkit, then making your own ideas work becomes harder, if not impossible. Even GURPS at it's worst never abandoned that approach. Sure, there's a LOT of useful information in the source/genre books, but you don't NEED them to run the game.

Or suspend your game until the sourcebook you want comes out...

[Netzilla]

Ahh... we tried the 'attack then move' option... speedsters become CRAZY effective. They attack, then end their move either out of sight, or with high range penalties to hit them (on top of generally high DCV's to boot). Energy projectors with lots of movement also get unbalancing, since they get to shoot at closer range, then move away, again gaining range penalties to shoot at them. Pure HTH combatants (aside from speedsters) have a hard time competing.

Doing this would nessessitate a large increase in (at least doubling) the cost of movement. I don't think this is really our best option.

Hmmm... What stops Speedsters from doing that already? A high-SPD Speedster can already attack and move away. Phase 2, Half-move and Attack. Phase 4, move out of line of sight. Phase 4, victim has no target. Phase 6, Speedster moves back in to attack. Phase 8, move out of LoS. Phase 8, victim has no target and so on.

A high-movement Speedster with a few levels in Move By, Grab By and Move Through (or the Passing Strike maneuver) is at least as bad, hitting the target half-way through their move and using the other half to get out of LoS. High-movement Energy Projectors with a few Range Levels or LoS attacks are also just as bad.

The worst I see Attack then Move doing is that it will allow the high-SPD Speedster to get in an extra attack on the way out. However, you'll notice that this requires a significantly higher SPD score to be effective. Even then, the slower character can also half-move and attack to get the Speedster back into LoS.

Now, a combination high-SPD and high movement Speedster would be a pain, but they already are when using the Move-X maneuvers (never mind Passing Strike).

Really, the problem would more seem to be getting to attack in the middle of your movement rather than at either end. Perhaps you can give a more specific example showing how the speedster becomes unbalanced?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Ahh... we tried the 'attack then move' option... speedsters become CRAZY effective. They attack, then end their move either out of sight, or with high range penalties to hit them (on top of generally high DCV's to boot). Energy projectors with lots of movement also get unbalancing, since they get to shoot at closer range, then move away, again gaining range penalties to shoot at them. Pure HTH combatants (aside from speedsters) have a hard time competing.

Doing this would nessessitate a large increase in (at least doubling) the cost of movement. I don't think this is really our best option.
Speedsters can already Move By, which isn't too different from move-attack-move.

Rather than doubling movement costs, I think a better solution is to allow aborting to an opportunity attack if an opponent tries to move past you or leave HTH combat with you.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

then what is to prevent Eb's w/ high movement from getting within 4" (ie not HTH) unloading then running away?

[Hugh Neilson]

Ahh... we tried the 'attack then move' option... speedsters become CRAZY effective. They attack, then end their move either out of sight, or with high range penalties to hit them (on top of generally high DCV's to boot). Energy projectors with lots of movement also get unbalancing, since they get to shoot at closer range, then move away, again gaining range penalties to shoot at them. Pure HTH combatants (aside from speedsters) have a hard time competing.

Doing this would nessessitate a large increase in (at least doubling) the cost of movement. I don't think this is really our best option.

I don't see how this would get horribly unbalancing.

then what is to prevent Eb's w/ high movement from getting within 4" (ie not HTH) unloading then running away?

Half move in to 4" away. Half move to attack. Now he has to wait until his next phase to move away. Nothing prevents him doing this NOW. The only difference is that, next phase, he can attack before moving away. Presently, he can't.

[Vulcan]

That's a bigger difference than you might appreciate. Run a few test battles with it, see what happens.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Complexity-layered Action Framework
There has been a lot of discussion about possible replacements to the SPD system and whether or not movement should be decoupled from SPD. I think a way to go is to introduce a system of layered complexity, which offers simpler solutions for those who want that. Here is a consolidated framework that allows easy scaling of complexity:

Common Framework

1 turn = 4 phases of 3 seconds. End-of-turn recovery as now.
There are no ½-phase or full-phase actions, just actions and reactions (actions that can be aborted to).
Characters can move every phase, before, during or after other actions (if any). 2"/phase ~ 5 kph (exact: 4.8 kph)
Moving all-out prevents other actions in the same phase. Certain actions (like Brace and Aim) preclude movement: If you move, you cancel the benefits from the action.
A new reaction Opportunity Attack allows aborting to attack targets that try to move past you or leave combat with you.
Shifting skill levels and multipower slots can only be done as part of an action (or reaction).


Simple System

All characters get one action per phase.
Actions can be done on your Dex or later, reactions can be done at any time if you haven't already used your action for the phase.
Defensive actions last until you get your next normal action.


Medium System

Like the Simple system, except mooks and Slow characters (20 point Disadvantage) only act in phases 1 and 3 (they can still move every phase).
In Heroic campaigns, characters can be Fast (20 point Talent), which means they get to act a second time in phases 1 and 3.
In Superheroic campaigns, characters can also be Superfast (40 point Talent), which means they get to act twice in all phases.


Complex System 1: SPD

Characters have a SPD characteristic (base 2, max 12, cost 10 per +1), which allows acting up to three times in a phase on consecutive segments according to the table below:

SPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ph1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 . 3 . 3 . 3
Ph2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 . 3 . 3
Ph3 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 . 3 . 3 . 3
Ph4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 . 2 . 2 . 3

Complex System 2: Action Points

Characters have an Action characteristic (base 2, max 24, cost 3 per +1, 10 points per -1 under base when buying down), and an equal number of action points (ap) per turn to spend on actions (ap pool is reset at the end of every turn).
You can do up to two actions/reactions in a phase.
A reaction costs 1 ap to do, whether or not you have already acted in the phase.
A normal action costs 1 ap if you did no actions (including reactions) the previous phase and 2 ap if you did. You cannot perform a normal action before your Dex in a phase.
A second normal action in a phase, or a normal action after a reaction, costs 4 ap.
Unless interrupted by other actions/reactions, defensive actions last until the end of the following phase.


Conversion to current SPD

Simple System: All have SPD 4.
Medium System: Slow, Normal, Fast, and Superfast are SPD 2, 4, 6, 8, respectively.
Complex 1 (SPD): Direct conversion.
Complex 2 (Action Points): 1ap~SPD1, 2ap~SPD2, 5ap~SPD3, 8ap~SPD4, each additional +4ap~+1SPD (to 24ap~SPD8)


Option: If the SPD system is limited to SPD 8, the framework gets even more consistent.

- Klaus

[James Gillen]

You un-had me at "Opportunity Attack." :thumbdown

jg

[Vulcan]

Complexity-layered Action Framework
There has been a lot of discussion about possible replacements to the SPD system and whether or not movement should be decoupled from SPD. I think a way to go is to introduce a system of layered complexity, which offers simpler solutions for those who want that. Here is a consolidated framework that allows easy scaling of complexity:




Common Framework

1 turn = 4 phases of 3 seconds. End-of-turn recovery as now.
There are no ½-phase or full-phase actions, just actions and reactions (actions that can be aborted to).
Characters can move every phase, before, during or after other actions (if any). 2"/phase ~ 5 kph (exact: 4.8 kph)
Moving all-out prevents other actions in the same phase. Certain actions (like Brace and Aim) preclude movement: If you move, you cancel the benefits from the action.
A new reaction Opportunity Attack allows aborting to attack targets that try to move past you or leave combat with you.
Shifting skill levels and multipower slots can only be done as part of an action (or reaction).


Simple System

All characters get one action per phase.
Actions can be done on your Dex or later, reactions can be done at any time if you haven't already used your action for the phase.
Defensive actions last until you get your next normal action.


Medium System

Like the Simple system, except mooks and Slow characters (20 point Disadvantage) only act in phases 1 and 3 (they can still move every phase).
In Heroic campaigns, characters can be Fast (20 point Talent), which means they get to act a second time in phases 1 and 3.
In Superheroic campaigns, characters can also be Superfast (40 point Talent), which means they get to act twice in all phases.


Complex System 1: SPD

Characters have a SPD characteristic (base 2, max 12, cost 10 per +1), which allows acting up to three times in a phase on consecutive segments according to the table below:
SPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ph1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 . 3 . 3 . 3
Ph2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 . 2 . 3 . 3
Ph3 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 . 3 . 3 . 3
Ph4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 . 2 . 2 . 3




Complex System 2: Action Points

Characters have an Action characteristic (base 2, max 24, cost 3 per +1, 10 points per -1 under base when buying down), and an equal number of action points (ap) per turn to spend on actions (ap pool is reset at the end of every turn).
You can do up to two actions/reactions in a phase.
A reaction costs 1 ap to do, whether or not you have already acted in the phase.
A normal action costs 1 ap if you did no actions (including reactions) the previous phase and 2 ap if you did. You cannot perform a normal action before your Dex in a phase.
A second normal action in a phase, or a normal action after a reaction, costs 4 ap.
Unless interrupted by other actions/reactions, defensive actions last until the end of the following phase.


Conversion to current SPD

Simple System: All have SPD 4.
Medium System: Slow, Normal, Fast, and Superfast are SPD 2, 4, 6, 8, respectively.
Complex 1 (SPD): Direct conversion.
Complex 2 (Action Points): 1ap~SPD1, 2ap~SPD2, 5ap~SPD3, 8ap~SPD4, each additional +4ap~+1SPD (to 24ap~SPD8)
Option: If the SPD system is limited to SPD 8, the framework gets even more consistent.

- Klaus

<Vulcan blinks repeatedly>

I thought the general idea was to simplify or streamline the HEROs rules without removing the HEROs feel. I suspect this would add a lot of extra pages to the book...
And if you remove the speed chart (which several of your options seem to do), in my opinion it doesn't feel like HEROs anymore.

[Klaus Mogensen]

You un-had me at "Opportunity Attack." :thumbdown
I feel that such is necessary if movement is made more free, to prevent fast movers from moving in, attacking, and moving away before the opponent can act. However, note that unlike the opportunity attack in D&D, this is not an extra, free action, just an opportunity to attack earlier than your Dex in certain situations.

I have for a long time felt that Hero lacked something that could prevent opponents from running past you and attack the people/things you are trying to protect. The opportunity attack is an attempt to remedy this, as well.

Possibly a Dex-vs.-Dex roll should be required in order to make an opportunity attack.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

<Vulcan blinks repeatedly>

I thought the general idea was to simplify or streamline the HEROs rules without removing the HEROs feel. I suspect this would add a lot of extra pages to the book...
And if you remove the speed chart (which several of your options seem to do), in my opinion it doesn't feel like HEROs anymore.

All the four options are simpler than the current SPD chart.
Options 2 and 3 have SPD charts, although the one in option 2 only has four steps.
The Action Point System is a lot more flexible and more finely granulated than the current SPD system, without being more complex.
If people think that having four options is too much, I will suggest reducing the field to options 2 (the 'medium' system) and option 4 (action point system). The first has the feel of the current SPD system, but is much simpler to understand and remember, and the second adds a lot of flexibility and granularity for those who want that.
- Klaus

[Chris Goodwin]

I feel that such is necessary if movement is made more free, to prevent fast movers from moving in, attacking, and moving away before the opponent can act. However, note that unlike the opportunity attack in D&D, this is not an extra, free action, just an opportunity to attack earlier than your Dex in certain situations.

I have for a long time felt that Hero lacked something that could prevent opponents from running past you and attack the people/things you are trying to protect. The opportunity attack is an attempt to remedy this, as well.

Possibly a Dex-vs.-Dex roll should be required in order to make an opportunity attack.

If you're allowing movement after attack, why not Abort to attack?

I'm serious.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If you're allowing movement after attack, why not Abort to attack?
That's exactly what I'm suggesting with my Opportunity Attack: that as a reaction to certain situations, you can abort to attack.

I would not allow aborting to attack at will in any situation, since people then would be doing that all the time.

- Klaus

[CTaylor]

The Fantasy Hero sourcebook specifically suggests allowing characters to abort to attack, and I've used that for years. It works well for the genre, and although characters don't use it often, it does make people more cautious in combat.

[Diamond_J]

The most important thing to address is the question; what doesn't work or is combersome about the current rules?

There's no point in making a new system unless you're going to significantly change the mechanics. Honestly if the change is inconsequential I'm not going to bother. I've allready bought an almost identical system.

My principle is that the core rule book should be no larger then 400 pgs. 90 percent of the bulk in the 5EDRevised is repetative fluff. This is why I prefer the 5th edition. This isn't because I don't like what they've changed; what I disslike is weeding through pages and pages compication to find out the simple trueth.

Basically the revised addition is written for "slow" people who need a hundred explinations with all the blanks filled in. This makes no sense because Hero gamers are very intelligent people as you can tell by reading these forums. We're all capable of using GM's arbitration for rare situations.

If a dimwitt doesn't understand a basic explination why do you think he'd understand a complex one? An itelligent person will understand the complex explination but won't need one, and will find the process tiring.

What does everybody "not" like, or find insuficient. Only when we know what needs be changed can we create change.

[IndianaJoe3]

I have for a long time felt that Hero lacked something that could prevent opponents from running past you and attack the people/things you are trying to protect.

It's called, "holding your action".

[GeekySpaz]

At long last I've read all 73 bloody pages of this thread. And now for my 2 yen.
Q: Should we change the type of dice used?
No, the d6 purity of this system is not only a convenience but contributes to the feel that helps create the atmosphere of a HERO game IMO. Q: Should we change the way dice are rolled?
Overall I don't think this is necessary, however I would like to voice some areas where it is at least theoretically possible to make improvements.

One idea that I've seen somewhere in this forum was to use 3d20 and take the median value. I know this contradicts what I stated above but as an option I think this idea has enough merit to be worth mentioning. This scheme has the same average result and similar extremes as 3d6 but has a flatter bell curve.

For damage I think it would be nice if normal damage and killing damage could be on a more consistent mechanic and if for normal damage it were not necessary to sum the total on every dice. Counting body is much quicker and simpler but there would have to be another way to determine stun for normal attacks. My half formed idea (and I think I've seen something similar posted in the combat forum) would be to for both normal and killing attacks to be count the body on the dice, as normal damage currently does, but have separate stun multipliers for killing and normal damage.
Q: Should we get rid of the hex/inch as a unit of measurement?
Every system I've ever seen that uses maps and miniatures uses some sort of game specific unit of measurement for movement and range. Hero currently uses 2m hexes. Starwars D20 uses 2m squares, DnD 3 and 3.5 use 5 ft squares. In DnD 4th edition speeds and ranges are no longer expressed in increments of 5 feet but instead are expressed simply in squares. I'm not suggesting that HERO emulate DnD but the new way DnD is approaching distance measurements is a strength of that system IMO. I don't object to there being some options for scaling the size of units for expressing distance, but the 2m hex is a very convenient measurement. Q: Should we change to Imperial measurements?
No. Bad idea. Lets not even go there. Q: Should we change the rules for rounding?
I think the rules for rounding are fine as is. Specifically there should be no need to round using more than the first decimal place. Q: Should we eliminate the distinction between Active Points and Real Points?
This is a very important distinction. I don't see any way to remove this distinction and still have the same flexibility in expressing powers that the HERO system currently has. We should not have change at the expense of loosing any of the flexibility of the system. Q: Should we redefine the HERO System to allow for “absolutes”?
I think that the absolutes that are necessary are already handled within the existing rules. Example; 100% DR could be handled with desolidification and the appropriate application of limitations. I don't see a need for new rules to handle absolutes. Q: Should some version of the “Hero Points” rules from Pulp Hero be included in the core rules?
I don't have Pulp Hero so I'm not exactly sure how Hero Points work in that book but if they do what I think they do I don't see why the existing luck mechanics can't handle this sort of thing. Q: Should the Superheroic concept of “you have to pay for everything” be explained in greater detail?
Some added explanation would not hurt on this particular item. I think the idea of not making players pay for that which does not offer a significant benefit has merit. Its really an expansion on the concept of the everyman skills. I think the everyman concept should be expanded to give every character a specific amount of background skills and abilities. For example in the champions game I am running now every character gets 1d6 of luck for free. Its considered part of the everyman package. I also plan to retroactively expand the everyman package to include 5 background skills of the player's choice.

Overall I think the HERO system is the best game there is in its current incarnation and can think of very few areas that need improvement. What I want to see in a new edition is a face lift of the physical product. Nice color artwork, a solid book that will stand the test of time and much use and abuse. I think DnD 4th edition and most books by Games Workshop are prime examples of the quality of the final product that game companies should aim for.

[AnotherSkip]

I think DnD 4th edition and most books by Games Workshop are prime examples of the quality of the final product that game companies should aim for.

I want a better quality than the only Games Workshop book I have!

[Klaus Mogensen]

My principle is that the core rule book should be no larger then 400 pgs. 90 percent of the bulk in the 5EDRevised is repetative fluff. This is why I prefer the 5th edition.
And why I like 4th even better. :)

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Originally Posted by Klaus Mogensen
I have for a long time felt that Hero lacked something that could prevent opponents from running past you and attack the people/things you are trying to protect.
It's called, "holding your action".
I'm well aware that you can do that. However, I have repeatedly seen situations where a hero spends a phase getting in front of someone they want to protect, and then before he gets his next action to use or hold, someone runs right by him and attacks the protectee. That does not feel good.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

All the four options are simpler than the current SPD chart.
I'll take your word for it. My eyes glazed over trying to figure out how these options worked.




Options 2 and 3 have SPD charts, although the one in option 2 only has four steps.
The Action Point System is a lot more flexible and more finely granulated than the current SPD system, without being more complex.
If people think that having four options is too much, I will suggest reducing the field to options 2 (the 'medium' system) and option 4 (action point system). The first has the feel of the current SPD system, but is much simpler to understand and remember, and the second adds a lot of flexibility and granularity for those who want that.
- Klaus

Fine, they may be the greatest gaming ideas ever - but they lack one thing.

The unique feel the speed chart gives the HERO System.

If they are included as optional rules, ok. But making one (or more) of them the 'default' system, I'll stick to 5th Edition. And I suspect I won't be alone.

[Vulcan]

The most important thing to address is the question; what doesn't work or is combersome about the current rules?

There's no point in making a new system unless you're going to significantly change the mechanics. Honestly if the change is inconsequential I'm not going to bother. I've allready bought an almost identical system.

My principle is that the core rule book should be no larger then 400 pgs. 90 percent of the bulk in the 5EDRevised is repetative fluff. This is why I prefer the 5th edition. This isn't because I don't like what they've changed; what I disslike is weeding through pages and pages compication to find out the simple trueth.

Basically the revised addition is written for "slow" people who need a hundred explinations with all the blanks filled in. This makes no sense because Hero gamers are very intelligent people as you can tell by reading these forums. We're all capable of using GM's arbitration for rare situations.

If a dimwitt doesn't understand a basic explination why do you think he'd understand a complex one? An itelligent person will understand the complex explination but won't need one, and will find the process tiring.

What does everybody "not" like, or find insuficient. Only when we know what needs be changed can we create change.

...:confused:

I'm told I'm a reasonably intelligent person. The people in my game group are reasonably intelligent people. But we all apreciated the clarifications in 5ER. Granted, most of us didn't buy it, since most of us had 5E books, but we agree that the 5ER revisions and clarifications made sense.

[Tonio]

The most important thing to address is the question; what doesn't work or is combersome about the current rules?

There's no point in making a new system unless you're going to significantly change the mechanics. Honestly if the change is inconsequential I'm not going to bother. I've allready bought an almost identical system.

My principle is that the core rule book should be no larger then 400 pgs. 90 percent of the bulk in the 5EDRevised is repetative fluff. This is why I prefer the 5th edition. This isn't because I don't like what they've changed; what I disslike is weeding through pages and pages compication to find out the simple trueth.

Basically the revised addition is written for "slow" people who need a hundred explinations with all the blanks filled in. This makes no sense because Hero gamers are very intelligent people as you can tell by reading these forums. We're all capable of using GM's arbitration for rare situations.

If a dimwitt doesn't understand a basic explination why do you think he'd understand a complex one? An itelligent person will understand the complex explination but won't need one, and will find the process tiring.

What does everybody "not" like, or find insuficient. Only when we know what needs be changed can we create change.

I'm going to assume you're narrowminded rather than deliberately offensive and insulting.

A large segment of the "intelligent" population prefers well detailed rules without loopholes over vague ones; clear, unequivocal rules over ambiguous ones; plenty of explanatory examples over a blanket assumption that a given rule is clear enough. We don't mind reading more in order to learn more or more clearly. We can infer when necessary, but we'd rather reduce the error margin by not having to.

Some of us actually prefer 5ER with all the extra stuff.

[GeekySpaz]

I'm well aware that you can do that. However, I have repeatedly seen situations where a hero spends a phase getting in front of someone they want to protect, and then before he gets his next action to use or hold, someone runs right by him and attacks the protectee. That does not feel good.

- Klaus

Actually if all your trying to do is protect a person from being attacked by another character who's trying to run around you you are allowed to abort an action to defend the person you are protecting if your GM allows it. This is in the existing rules for aborting an action. I would believe most reasonable GMs would allow this.

[BobGreenwade]

I'm going to assume you're narrowminded rather than deliberately offensive and insulting.When someone criticizes someone else's intelligence in a post full of spelling and punctuation errors and misused words, I'd have to say he's bordering on the downright stupid.

(I say "bordering on" in part because he has a couple of reasonable points: Why make a new edition if all the changes are going to be minor? And if the size of the rulebook is too great it'll scare off new players, which is the opposite of what we want. But really...!)

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually if all your trying to do is protect a person from being attacked by another character who's trying to run around you you are allowed to abort an action to defend the person you are protecting if your GM allows it. This is in the existing rules for aborting an action. I would believe most reasonable GMs would allow this.

I recall an optional rule (maybe never made it into 4e) for Interpose. I get close to the character I want to protect, and declare a number. That number reduces my DCV. If anyone attacks the person I am protecting, I get the same number as a bonus to my OCV against them.

Combine that with the Abort to Attack option discussed above (which is in 5e, Klaus - looks like at least one of your concerns would be resolved if you used the current rules set) would make a very effective "protect this target" option.

[Talon]

Combine that with the Abort to Attack option discussed above (which is in 5e, Klaus - looks like at least one of your concerns would be resolved if you used the current rules set) would make a very effective "protect this target" option.

Where is Abort to Attack? 5ER p.362 seems pretty clear that it's not allowed.

[CTaylor]

Where is Abort to Attack? 5ER p.362 seems pretty clear that it's not allowed.

It's suggested in Fantasy Hero (a rule I've used for years) that if someone runs past you, you can abort to an attack; think of it as an "attack of opportunity" if you must. I think of it more in terms of wargaming and zones of control.

[Talon]

It's suggested in Fantasy Hero (a rule I've used for years) that if someone runs past you, you can abort to an attack; think of it as an "attack of opportunity" if you must. I think of it more in terms of wargaming and zones of control.

Could you give me a page number? It seems like a good idea but I didn't see it in the combat section of FH...

[IndianaJoe3]

However, I have repeatedly seen situations where a hero spends a phase getting in front of someone they want to protect, and then before he gets his next action to use or hold, someone runs right by him and attacks the protectee.

That is Hero imperfectly simulating the hero arriving just a little too late. If the villain arrives one segment later than the hero, he can still abort to a defensive action - including blocking an incoming attack.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Combine that with the Abort to Attack option discussed above (which is in 5e, Klaus - looks like at least one of your concerns would be resolved if you used the current rules set) would make a very effective "protect this target" option.
I've just looked in 5e, and it specifically states that "A character can never abort to attack" (p. 236).

It does go on to say that, with GM permission, "a character can step in front of an attack intended to hit another character". This is certainly an improvement over 4e, but still a far cry from an opportunity attack.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

t does go on to say that, with GM permission, "a character can step in front of an attack intended to hit another character". This is certainly an improvement over 4e, but still a far cry from an opportunity attack.

- Klaus

If you want an attack of opportunity, you can build a triggered attack as a "fighting feat" and set the trigger as "ignored by opponent in adjacent hex". (We've done this in my FH games, where fighting feats have been all the rage since long before D&D popularised the idea). I'm not sure I want attacks of opportunity with all the heartache they involve (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792) in Hero. I can already play D20 if I like, and it's not at all unrealistic that you occasionally get blindsided in combat because you can't react fast enough.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

If you want an attack of opportunity, you can build a triggered attack as a "fighting feat" and set the trigger as "ignored by opponent in adjacent hex". (We've done this in my FH games, where fighting feats have been all the rage since long before D&D popularised the idea).
I agree that this is possible; I just don't think that just because everything can be bought as powers, everything should be bought as powers.

I'm not sure I want attacks of opportunity with all the heartache they involve (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792) in Hero.
The kind of opportunity attack I'm advocating isn't a free, extra attack, but one you can abort to at the cost of your next normal action. That should prevent abuse.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'd like to present a somewhat simpler version of my recently presented layered action framework (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1639548&postcount=1073). However, before presenting it, I think it may be a good idea to explain why I think such a system is a good idea:

The Speed system is a central and defining part of the Hero System, but it is also very clunky. Apart from requiring a 12x12 Speed Chart, none of the rules for changing Speed work very well, and the system allows a lot of metagaming. Since movement in essence is multiplied by SPD, you have characters paying less for movement moving faster - but doing less movement damage. The SPD-coupled movement also makes it more difficult to convert "/phase into actual velocity.

Most systems that allow different number of actions for different characters tend to either be front-loaded (fast characters get all their extra actions before other characters act) or end-loaded (fast characters get all their extra actions after other characters act). The good - and core - part of the Speed system is the way it spreads actions across a turn. This part I want to retain, while getting rid of some of the clunkiness and complexity.

The objectives for this framework are:

Decoupling movement from Speed without adding complexity.
Simplifying the SPD Chart without losing the feel of it.
Adding a simple and a more flexible option for those that want that, within the same overall framework. (Strengthening the toolkit aspect of Hero)


Now presenting:
Revised Layered Action Framework

Common Framework

1 turn = 4 phases of 3 seconds. End-of-turn recovery as now.
END for continuos powers is paid once per phase.
There are no ½-phase or full-phase actions, just actions. Actions that can be aborted to are called reactions for simplicity.
Characters can (full) move every phase; before, during or after other actions (if any). Movement only counts as an action if it requires skill rolls or combat rolls.
Certain actions (like Brace and Set) preclude movement: If you move, you cancel the benefits from the action. Non-combat movement cannot be combined with any action.
A new reaction Opportunity Attack allows aborting to attack targets that try to move past you or leave combat with you.
Characters that act twice in a phase get to perform both their actions at their Dex, though one action (not both) can be held until the end of the phase.


Simple System (suitable for games with no supers)

There is no SPD Characteristic.
All major characters get one action per phase.
Mooks and Slow characters (20 point Disadvantage) only act in phases 1 and 3 (they can still move every phase).


Simplified Speed Chart (the closest to the current system)

SPD Characteristic (base 2, max 8, cost 10 per +1).
Characters with SPD 1-4 get 0 or 1 action in a phase. Characters with SPD 5-8 (supers only) get 1 or 2 actions in a phase. See chart below for details.
Characters can change Speed at will at the beginning of every phase, to a maximum of their SPD Characteristic (no other restrictions apply).

SPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ph1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Ph2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
Ph3 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Ph4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2


Action Point System (greater granularity and flexibility)

Action (ACT) Characteristic (base 2, max 24, cost 3 per +1, except buying/draining below 2 gains/costs 10 per -1).
Characters have action point (ap) pool equal to their Action Characteristic. Points are spent to act, and pool is reset at End-of-turn.
1 ap to act if you didn't act in the previous phase, 2 points to act if you did act in the previous phase (for phase 1, this means phase 4 of the previous turn).
4 ap to act a second time in a phase.
Reactions cost 1 ap regardless of when they are performed. You can't perform a reaction if you've already acted twice in the phase.


That's it.

I chose to reduce SPD maximum to 8 for the sake of simplicity. Characters with SPD 9-12 are IME so rare that I feel this is a small loss. No character or monster in 4e Champions or 4e Bestiary has SPD > 7, for instance.

The action point system allows the choice between many actions spread over a turn or acting fewer times early on. With ACT 5 you can e.g. act once in phases 1, 2 and 3 or twice in phase 1. It is also more finely granulated. ACT 5 and 6 both allow 3 normal actions per turn, but with ACT 6, you can perform one more reaction, or perform you normal actions faster (twice in phase1 and once in phase 3). Having one more point of ACT will sometimes allow you to act one more time every other turn.

Notes on movement conversion and cost:

The exact conversion is 5 m/phase = 6 kph. Human non-combat maximum can be represented by the 4-minute mile, which is 24 kph, or 20 m/phase. Maximum combat movement for normal humans should thus be 10 m/phase. Pushing will allow faster sprinting.
On this basis, I suggest changing movement from being measured in "/phase to m/phase, but at the same cost per unit. Since this action framework allows full move (rather than half move) every phase in addition to other actions, the difference will mainly be felt in non-combat movement, which will be slower for characters with SPD > 2.


- Klaus

[Markdoc]

The kind of opportunity attack I'm advocating isn't a free, extra attack, but one you can abort to at the cost of your next normal action. That should prevent abuse.

Except that in many cases, the ability to take a second attack immediately after you have taken an action can by itself, be abusive. Being able to abort to an attack the segment after you (or someone else) stun a target and zap them while they are at DCV 0 (headshot!), or stab them immediately after you hit them with a drain targetting their defence, or use your full phase to run up to them and then next phase abort to an attack, etc.

To stop that sort of abuse, you'd need to have extra combat rules on when you can and cannot abort to an attack. Since we have the possibility to build "attacks of opportunity" as powers for those cases where we really need them, I question the need to add more combat rules and more complexity if there's not a really good reason .... and so far I am not seeing it. The "unable to react" trope is not unrealistic and even if we allowed abort to an attack, you end up with the same problem when an action occurs on the same segment you act (that's normally what I do in-game if I want to dart past a foe unscathed - I delay and then do it in the same segment they act). The only way to address that is to allow aborting to an action on a segment where you have already acted, and I really don't think we want to go there.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

I've just looked in 5e, and it specifically states that "A character can never abort to attack" (p. 236).

Re-presented as you obviously missed it a couple of pages back...

The Fantasy Hero sourcebook specifically suggests allowing characters to abort to attack, and I've used that for years. It works well for the genre, and although characters don't use it often, it does make people more cautious in combat.

[Hugh Neilson]

Simple System (suitable for games with no supers)

There is no SPD Characteristic.
All major characters get one action per phase.
Mooks and Slow characters (20 point Disadvantage) only act in phases 1 and 3 (they can still move every phase).


Simplified Speed Chart (the closest to the current system)

SPD Characteristic (base 2, max 8, cost 10 per +1).
Characters with SPD 1-4 get 0 or 1 action in a phase. Characters with SPD 5-8 (supers only) get 1 or 2 actions in a phase. See chart below for details.
Characters can change Speed at will at the beginning of every phase, to a maximum of their SPD Characteristic (no other restrictions apply).

SPD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ph1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Ph2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
Ph3 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Ph4 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2

Assuming I can use both my actions in a phase (SPD 5-8), I can use one attack to immobilize/disadvantage my target [Flash; Entangle blocks no damage] and the second to hit full force against a helpless target.

Or I can use one action to attack (all levels to OCV) and a second to go full defense [shift attack MP to Force Field enhancer; Dodge; all levels to DCV]

Two actions in a row will get quite abusive.

Action Point System (greater granularity and flexibility)

Action (ACT) Characteristic (base 2, max 24, cost 3 per +1, except buying/draining below 2 gains/costs 10 per -1).
Characters have action point (ap) pool equal to their Action Characteristic. Points are spent to act, and pool is reset at End-of-turn.
1 ap to act if you didn't act in the previous phase, 2 points to act if you did act in the previous phase (for phase 1, this means phase 4 of the previous turn).
4 ap to act a second time in a phase.
Reactions cost 1 ap regardless of when they are performed. You can't perform a reaction if you've already acted twice in the phase.
[/INDENT]

Two actions in a phase quickly becomes the norm. As noted above, that's the most abusive approach. At 24 AP, I act twice every phase, clearly an excellent use of 66 points.

If I have, say, 7 AP, I double attack one phase then abort to Dodge/full turtle mode next phase.

Do I need to spend an action point to "opportunity attack"? If not, I just keep moving to stay near the target so he can't get away without getting hit. If so, we're back to "I close to defend my ally, and the enemy just walks away with no repercussions".

[Klaus Mogensen]

Assuming I can use both my actions in a phase (SPD 5-8), I can use one attack to immobilize/disadvantage my target [Flash; Entangle blocks no damage] and the second to hit full force against a helpless target.

Or I can use one action to attack (all levels to OCV) and a second to go full defense [shift attack MP to Force Field enhancer; Dodge; all levels to DCV]

Two actions in a row will get quite abusive.
It's really not that different from now. Characters with high SPD will often get two actions before their opponent can act.

My original version required second actions in a phase to come after everybody had their first, but I decided to simplify. Also consider two SPD-8 characters in both systems, one (A) with higher Dex than (B):

Current system:
Seg2: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg3: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg5: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg6: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Etc. Not good for B - he never gets a chance to hit back.

My system:
Ph1: A attacks and stuns B. A makes follow-up attack. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph2: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph3: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph4: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.

As you can see, the current system can be much more abusive than my system. It's only if A can knock B out with the two attacks in Phase 1 that things get as bad as in the current system. Also remember that when B is attacked, he can abort to a Dodge, and then when A has made big holes in the air trying to hit him, he can use his second action to hit back.

Two actions in a phase quickly becomes the norm. As noted above, that's the most abusive approach. At 24 AP, I act twice every phase, clearly an excellent use of 66 points.
In the current system, you can get 8 attacks per turn for just 60 points - less, if your DEX is higher than 10. Even more excellent use of points - I wonder why more don't do that?

If I have, say, 7 AP, I double attack one phase then abort to Dodge/full turtle mode next phase.
Assuming that your opponent doesn't brain you before next phase. :)

Anyway, in the current system, if I have, say, SPD 5, I double-attack the SPD 2 fellow then abort to Dodge/full turtle mode next segment. And unlike in my system, the SPD 2 fellow doesn't get a chance to hit back before I go turtle.

Do I need to spend an action point to "opportunity attack"?
Opportunity attack is a reaction, and reactions cost 1 ap. That should be clear enough.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re-presented as you obviously missed it a couple of pages back...
I didn't miss it, but a suggestion in a genre book hardly counts as a core rule. :)

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

It's really not that different from now. Characters with high SPD will often get two actions before their opponent can act.

And have paid a price to do so. In my experience, a character is tough, or fast, rarely both. And if he is tough and fast (barring an abusive build) he likely has very little striking power and cannot reliably a) hit, b) stun, or c) both.

My original version required second actions in a phase to come after everybody had their first, but I decided to simplify. Also consider two SPD-8 characters in both systems, one (A) with higher Dex than (B):

Current system:
Seg2: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg3: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg5: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg6: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Etc. Not good for B - he never gets a chance to hit back.

Assuming that A also has an OCV advantage over B's DCV (at least +3 or so) AFTER B undertakes defensive actions, and can reliably stun B. In that case, B may attempt to hurry his action (if their DEX's are relatively close).

If A's DEX is more than 4 points higher than B, AND has that much of a CV advantage, AND can stun B reliably, then B is pretty much screwed, sure. In practice, I've never seen it come up in a situation where you don't have a teammate around to bail you out. (While it actually did happen in a game I played, it was a situation where a martial artist took on Malachite solo, knowing he was screwed ahead of time. Malachite did not disappoint him)

My system:
Ph1: A attacks and stuns B. A makes follow-up attack. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph2: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph3: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph4: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.

As you can see, the current system can be much more abusive than my system. It's only if A can knock B out with the two attacks in Phase 1 that things get as bad as in the current system. Also remember that when B is attacked, he can abort to a Dodge, and then when A has made big holes in the air trying to hit him, he can use his second action to hit back.

Or, if A has all the advantages he needed for your example from the current system, he a) stuns B in the first hit; then b) takes advantage of the amazing flexibility of the HEROs rules to put B at a further disadvantage. For example, if A already has a massive enough point advantage to execute the 'attack series' in the 'current' rules, he likely is stronger, so he might grab and squeeze B. Now B has to escape the grab - after loosing his 'first' action to being stunned. Or perhaps A has an entagle, a rope, or a pair of handcuffs he found laying around. If all else fails, a martial throw, using the optional rule for 'throwing for distance', even if it's just one inch, means B's action goes more like 'B unstuns, B gets up, B can't do diddly except make a half-move (and ending his action), holding an action (which I'm not sure if your rules even allow, and even then he has to beat the DEX roll of someone who has a better DEX and therefore likely a better DEX roll to boot!), or running and praying. Of course if B has Breakfall or Position Shift on a movement power, it's a little different, but not everyone does (but that might change for people using your system).

In the current system, you can get 8 attacks per turn for just 60 points - less, if your DEX is higher than 10. Even more excellent use of points - I wonder why more don't do that?

Because at most point levels, 8 SPD is restricted by the GM. And in addition, that's not points spent on attacks, defenses, or skill levels. A character with a 4 SPD and 40 more points in defenses or (worse) skill levels is going to give Mr. 8 SPD all sorts of headaches. That's why Speedsters (the only characters I've seen that routinely reach that level of speed, short of the team-busting MegaVillians) don't utterly dominate the battlefield.

<snip>

Anyway, in the current system, if I have, say, SPD 5, I double-attack the SPD 2 fellow then abort to Dodge/full turtle mode next segment. And unlike in my system, the SPD 2 fellow doesn't get a chance to hit back before I go turtle.

First, that kind of tactic is how low-defense high-speed characters survive. Your rules would make them pretty much useless. Everyone will buy higher defenses to help survive the 'double-tap' combat system, and soon all the characters start looking suspiciously alike, because that's the most efficient way to use the system.

Second, I would say a SPD 2 opponent (pardon me, target) is meat on the table for anyone capable of backing into the hero's role, even at low point levels.

Two characters fighting rarely sit there and just beat on each other, like I keep seeing in the examples. There are myriad ways in the HERO System for Mr. B to even the odds. And if Mr. A (obviosuly an NPC) can cover all of them....http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif

What is poor Mr B. even doing there?

[CTaylor]

That's why Speedsters (the only characters I've seen that routinely reach that level of speed, short of the team-busting MegaVillians) don't utterly dominate the battlefield.

Depends a lot on the build and the battlefield. If it's full of agents the speedster will clean up. If it's one big bruiser, the speedster will tend to be less effective, even with penetrating autofire attacks and so on.

[Vulcan]

Depends a lot on the build and the battlefield. If it's full of agents the speedster will clean up. If it's one big bruiser, the speedster will tend to be less effective, even with penetrating autofire attacks and so on.

Against agents, the brick will pick up an I-beam, or telephone pole, or some such thing and sweep the field clean...:D

All superheroes do well against agents. That's why they're called agents, not villians.;)

[CTaylor]

Yeah but by the time the brick picks up the I-Beam, the speedster has dropped five or six of them. Speedsters are really at an advantage with higher speed: speed kills.

[Vulcan]

Sure. And then the brick takes that "AEH Cone OIF Telephone Pole of Opportunity" and downs the largest group of 6-8 agents in one swing.:cool:

Add in the 6-8 agents taken out by the martial artist (as he Sweeps small groups) and the 6-8 (and possibly more) agents taken out by the energy projector with his AF, Explosion, or AEH attack, and however many guys the mentalist takes out by mind controlling agents and having them shoot at other agents...

And it's http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/icon28.gif by phase 6.

If you can keep the agents from concetrating their fire (teamwork can be lethal, just ask Chain) then any hero can wipe them out pretty easily.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's really not that different from now. Characters with high SPD will often get two actions before their opponent can act.

It's very different in that no one else gets the opportunity to do anything between the two shots. Such as interposing, or breaking the teammate out of the entangle.

=Current system:
Seg2: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg3: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg5: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Seg6: A attacks and stuns B. B unstuns.
Etc. Not good for B - he never gets a chance to hit back.

My system:
Ph1: A attacks and stuns B. A makes follow-up attack. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph2: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph3: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.
Ph4: A Unstuns, then attacks and stuns B. B unstuns, then attacks and stuns A.

As you can see, the current system can be much more abusive than my system. It's only if A can knock B out with the two attacks in Phase 1 that things get as bad as in the current system. Also remember that when B is attacked, he can abort to a Dodge, and then when A has made big holes in the air trying to hit him, he can use his second action to hit back.

If A can consistently hit and Stun, he's going to win anyway. In your system, B has no chance to break the tiny little entangle before A blasts him with his followup attack. An AE 1 hex Entangle, takes no damage becomes devastating - stop the opponent, however good his DCV, with that and then hit him with a followup attack before he or anyone else can react.

Assuming that your opponent doesn't brain you before next phase. :)

Assuming my opponent survives that one-two combo AND I fail to manage the timing accurately.

Anyway, in the current system, if I have, say, SPD 5, I double-attack the SPD 2 fellow then abort to Dodge/full turtle mode next segment. And unlike in my system, the SPD 2 fellow doesn't get a chance to hit back before I go turtle.

The comparison of 5 SPD hero to 2 SPD normal seems useless to me. And in the usual system, other characters get to move between the two phases to help out Turtleman.

Opportunity attack is a reaction, and reactions cost 1 ap. That should be clear enough.

Can I make one against a guy flying past due Knockback or (Martial Throw)? How does OA differentiate between voluntary and involuntary movement?

Do I get my OA before he gets his Move By/Move Through?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Can I make one against a guy flying past due Knockback or (Martial Throw)?
Offhand, I would say he can, simply because this favors character cooperation.

Do I get my OA before he gets his Move By/Move Through?
Just after a Move By, not at all in a Move Through (the attacker isn't trying to pass by the target or leaving combat with him).

At any rate, I agree that playtesting is needed to see how this works out in practice. I hope to get the time over the weekend to run a few simulated battles. (It would be great if others could do the same; test the system(s) to destruction, so to speak.) It may be that I will go back to my original idea where the second action in a phase always comes after everybody have had their first.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

ick, sounds more and more like the not so good parts of Shadowrun and D&D 3rd cross breeding.

[Vulcan]

I agree with Hugh Neilson here. That is a HUGE difference between the current system and the one proposed. The ability of other characters to potentially intervene is totally lost in the 'two (or even three:nonp:) actions in a row' setup in the proposed system. It simply isn't genre-freindly.

He're a (granted, over-the top) example. Dr. Destroyer vs. a team of 4. D. D, having a higher DEX than the PC's and an extermely high speed goes first. He gets three actions, blasting 3 PC's and stunning all three (highly possible given the disparity in points and the option to choose the three lowest DCV characters). #4 gets to act, but since he is effectively all alone, he does minimal (if any) damage. The other characters recover from stun, do perhaps more inconsequential damage, before Dr. D goes again, stunning all three and quite possibly knocking one or more of them out. Repeat ad nauseum. Dr. D wins easily, taking over the world.

Yeah, that's genre friendly.

This weights things A LOT in favor of high speed characters, even more so than the current system. With the current system, a chacarcter can only act on sequential segments if he a) holds, or b) has at least a 7 SPD - which is why a 7 SPD is pretty rare, and higher SPD scores even rarer. Now you want to give multiple actions per segment to characters with as little as (equivalent to) a 5 SPD?:eek:

[Wishfullthinker]

Perhaps if we remove the Speed statistic altogether. Instead just use Dex, in this way.
Each character gets a number of action points equal to their Dex. The character with the highest action points may choose to go first. When a person takes a full phase action it costs them 5 action points, a half phase action costs 2 action points. Then after that person takes thier action the person with the highest action points remaining goes next. A character may take their action points below zero, but once thier action points are at zero or below they can not take any further actions. Once all players are at zero or below the turn ends and everyone gets their post 12 action. Lightning reflexes increases the value of their action points with regard as to when they go, but has no effect on the actual number of action points.

If this rule is used, it should be done in such a way, that each character has an opportunity to go before anyone else can go twice, as long as that character is not below one action point.

[Vulcan]

Great idea. Officer thinking. Not HEROs. Sorry.

[SteveZilla]

Offhand, I would say he can, simply because this favors character cooperation.

Then what prevents several characters from playing hacky sack with the target?

A hits D and knocks him past B.
B hits D as he is "going past", knocking him past C.
C hits D as he is "going past", knocking him past A.
A hits D as he is "going past", knocking him past B...

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. :ugly: