General Rules Issues

[Talon]

Agreed for the most part, but would actualy like to see 2-3 different ways other than the speed chart to handle things (To make it more random, to get rid of it, to shorten the cycles, to go beyond speed 12, etc...)

I think this many options belong somewhere other than the core book. Too many options causes rules bloat and makes it hard to know when to use each variant. To be fair to such variants they need space to discuss their benefits and drawbacks.

[Vulcan]

That's a good point. I want the SPD chart in my HEROs, it just wouldn't be the same to me without it. But (I guess) something should be available for those who don't like it. I could even accept the 'assume SPD 4' method being in the core book as an option, with other systems being saved for other books.

I would just hate seeing the SPD chart go away. I think it is a bigger part of the system's flexibility than some people realize.

[The Monster]

That's a good point. I want the SPD chart in my HEROs, it just wouldn't be the same to me without it. But (I guess) something should be available for those who don't like it. I could even accept the 'assume SPD 4' method being in the core book as an option, with other systems being saved for other books.

I would just hate seeing the SPD chart go away. I think it is a bigger part of the system's flexibility than some people realize. I'm pretty much with this sentiment. I mostly run Hero at subsuper levels; and the SPD chart makes it very easy to distinguish: PCs and competent NPCs are pretty much all SPD3; martial artists and specialist NPCs are SPD 4; mooks are SPD 2. At that power level, the SPD difference is important enough that I can give very similar stats and adds to three different characters, and still have a strong in-game ladder of power.

My main caveat on the SPD chart (more at super levels) is that it's too rigid, too easy to carefully time your actions based on a rules mechanism as opposed to the situation and flow of narrative/action. Attacks at least (unless specifically modified) take a to-hit roll and a damage roll, introducing some element of unpredicability even with heavily-skewed odds; I'd like to see some similar flavor introduced to SPD/initiative. There's certainly several ways to do it; I'll leave it do the Masters to work out the details.

[SteveZilla]

I think this many options belong somewhere other than the core book. Too many options causes rules bloat and makes it hard to know when to use each variant. To be fair to such variants they need space to discuss their benefits and drawbacks.

That's a good point. I want the SPD chart in my HEROs, it just wouldn't be the same to me without it. But (I guess) something should be available for those who don't like it. I could even accept the 'assume SPD 4' method being in the core book as an option, with other systems being saved for other books.

I would just hate seeing the SPD chart go away. I think it is a bigger part of the system's flexibility than some people realize.

There is already the option of removing SPD from combat by essentially making everybody SPD 3. 5ER, p380, sidebar "Nine Ways To Speed Up Combat". It's not an option that I ever plan on using, but it's there and all it took was a sidebar. Though removal via fixed SPD is simple compared to some of the other suggestions here. Those would need a greater discourse IMO, were they to be put into a rulebook.

[Grail Quest]

Yeah, like how ridiculously unbalancing that can get!

Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it is necessarily unbalancing. Especially if HERO is meant to allow simulating "anything". Comics have had tons of speedsters, most of them way over SPD 12. This is one example of how the SPD chart limits things, gets in the way, and to a great extent, DOESN'T simulate comics at all. I feel it's a drawback to HERO, rather than a strength. Does it distinguish HERO from the other games? Yup. But in a good way? I don't know...

[BobGreenwade]

That's a good point. I want the SPD chart in my HEROs, it just wouldn't be the same to me without it.I use it for everyone, not just the heroes.Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it is necessarily unbalancing. Especially if HERO is meant to allow simulating "anything". Comics have had tons of speedsters, most of them way over SPD 12.Actually very few speedsters that I've seen have that many separate actions during combat compared to their fellows. The only ones I can think of offhand, who don't do this by what TUSp refers to as "entering the Speed Zone," have been Impulse and the Stan Lee version of the Flash. The others just move really, really fast.

On the other hand there are cases where entities other than speedsters have moved that quickly, such as high-end combat computers and divine beings.

[CTaylor]

Some incarnations of the Flash move that fast, but they do so inconsistently. Basically the writers put themselves into a corner, they defined the hero being incalculably powerful, then have to tone them down to make a story work... over and over. The Flash has moved at speed 12+ in the past, but usually is only about speed 5-6 based on how many panels he moves and what he does compared to other characters. That's a writer flaw (how can I make this challenging?) more than a character build indicator.

[Vulcan]

Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean it is necessarily unbalancing. Especially if HERO is meant to allow simulating "anything". Comics have had tons of speedsters, most of them way over SPD 12. This is one example of how the SPD chart limits things, gets in the way, and to a great extent, DOESN'T simulate comics at all. I feel it's a drawback to HERO, rather than a strength. Does it distinguish HERO from the other games? Yup. But in a good way? I don't know...

Good point, and I apologize for that knee-jerk post of mine. It just comes from watching a SPD 9 character in action in a high-level superhero game (the average SPD was between 6 & 7). The SPD 9 character was unreal in how effective he was - the player actually reduced his SPD back to 8 after 3 sessions, it was so unbalancing. At least, it was in our game.

If your game works with SPD of 12 or better, by all means, go for it.:thumbup:

[PhilFleischmann]

Beyond SPD 12: character gets one Phase per Segment, plus a second Phase per the Speed Chart (i.e., a SPD 15 character gets double Phases in Segments 4, 8, and 12). Double Phases are gained on DEX and DEX/2 in the Segment. If a character performs an Attack Action on the first Phase, he cannot Abort until the second Phase. And so on for >24 SPD (DEX, 2/3DEX, 1/3DEX).

I'm sure I've missed some rules issues here, but that should cover the main points...
I've done this before (once, as GM, with a villain), and found it to be not particularly unbalancing, since SPD is so expensive. I had a villain with a 24 SPD. He was about 500 points in a 350-point game and was still beaten quite easily. He had to spend so much on SPD, that he was deficient on Defense and Offense.

And I would recommend not having the extra phases on fractions of DEX, as you say, because that can lead to wierd arrangements where slower characters go before faster ones. I'd do it using separate DEX countdowns: All those with an extra phase go according to their DEX, and then the regular phases go according to their DEX.

For example: in one segment, Blitz, Accelerato, Mercury, Doubletime, Superguy, Captain Crowbar, Slowpoke, and Aunt Martha all have phases. Blitz has a SPD above 24, and actually gets 3 phases. Accelerato, Mercury, and Doubletime each get two phases, having SPD's between 13 and 24, Superguy, Captian Crowbar, Slowpoke, and Aunt Martha each have more normal SPD's of 12 or less, and get one phase each.

First, Blitz takes a phase, regardless of his DEX, since he's the only one who gets a three. Then Blitz (DEX 29), Accelerato (DEX 30), Mercury (DEX 35), and Doubletime (DEX 26), each get a phase: Mercury, then Accelerato, then Blitz, then Doubletime. Then all these characters would get a phase in DEX order: First Mercury, then Superguy (DEX 32), then Accelerato, then Blitz, then Captain Crowbar (DEX 27), then Doubletime, then Slowpoke (Dex 14), then Aunt Martha (DEX 5).

[CTaylor]

I always had people with higher than 12 speed move on their dex, then at the end of the phase. Tactically that often ends up far better than moving earlier in many cases anyway. The only problem with 13+ speed is when you come to recoveries or extra time. Can you take a recovery on a phase you moved? Technically you're using up an entire phase if you use one of the two phases you get that segment, but then again you aren't...

[prestidigitator]

I've always put 13+ Speed characters in additional "Segments" after the normal Segments. So normal characters essentially act on a (sub)set of Segments 1A, 2A, 3A, ..., 12A, and 13+ speeders also act on a (sub)set of 1B, 2B, 3B, ..., 12B, etc. (25+ speeders would get some C Segments also...). For these characters, it IS like another full Segment, so anything you couldn't normally do until the "next" Segment they can do in their "B" Segments--but only the ones they actually have (so a Speed 15 character acts as if there were 3 extra full Segments in the turn: 4B, 8B, and 12B, but to him/her, 1B, 2B, 3B, 5B, etc. don't exist). Yes, that includes Haymakers and such. However, obviously things that affect a character on each Segment (like falling and some damage) would NOT happen on the B, C, ... Segments.

[SteveZilla]

This IMO seems like a good way to handle open-ended SPD purchases. Any two SPD scores go in a ratio to each other already (i.e., SPD 8 goes 8/5 as often as SPD 5 in the same period of time), so introuducing "Sub-Phases" for SPDs over 12 keeps this consistent (and also preserves raw DEX order of action), but without the juggling of multiple actions at various fractional DEXs within a single Segment.

Here's a question: Continuous attacks do their damage on the attacker's Phases. Would these "Sub-Phases" count for the damage happening? For ex: Mr. 24 has a (you guessed it!) 24 SPD and a Continuous EB. Would his EB do damage 24 times in one Turn?

Also, the more Phases one packs into a Turn (36 SPD, anyone?) the more important either their powers being 0 END, or the level of their END and REC, becomes. It's possible that between two ultra-high SPD (12+) speedsters the combat would be over before they get though a single Turn (and get a PF12 -- not counting the first one since combat starts on 12).

Hrrmm...

Which, with SPD in a multiple of 12 (24, 36, etc), a Speedster would get multiple actions before everybody gets their PF12? This could be unbalancing IMO.

[Talon]

I think these high SPD ideas are good, but putting them in the main rulebook is just going to give Steve headaches as people ask all sorts of detailed questions. I'd rather see it appear in a sourcebook (say, one about really fast characters) in more detail.

[Vulcan]

Perhaps the 6E Ultmate Speedster.

[Vulcan]

badger3k posted this in the HERO System discussion, and I wanted to bring it up here.

In a way, that is what TA, the USPD and others do, in part. They give the "fluff" bit and the meat - the Hero stats, lims, advs, etc. I can see that it might be interesting to take it that step further, and make a supplement that is based off the Hero Rules, but keeps them hidden. It might work to get people into the system (d6 rolls, hit locations, Stun & Body, etc), without all the internal parts...until they want to go there. Call it Hero and Hero Lite. Make it so that someone could just pick up a book, grab some options, put points in (or even pick up premade character sets of stats) and play, then gradually work them into the underbelly which is the Real Hero System.

Reading that, it sounds odd, but I think I said it all.

To restate - something like that would be an option. The regular Hero rules will be there for the rest of us to tinker with. :)

This might be a good way to get new gamers into the system without overwhelming them, as well as a way to keep the game 'crunchy' enough for the old-school players.

You have a basic set of rules for beginners. Call it HERO's Light, Intro to HERO's, whatever. It's a pick-and-play setup with basic powers, a shortened skill list, and just enough mechanics for newbies to get their feet wet. There could even be one for each genre - or the genre books could have a chapter catering to the 'Light' players. The 5E Chapions sourcebook has a chapter or two like this, with random powersets and a generic description of archetypes.

And for the long-time players, you have the Toolkit edition, which is set up like the HERO System we all know, love, and have supported over the years. If you've done HERO's Light correctly, a new player should be able to step up from Light to Toolkit without too much trouble... and should be enthusiastic about doing so!

[Chris Goodwin]

You have a basic set of rules for beginners. Call it HERO's Light, Intro to HERO's, whatever. It's a pick-and-play setup with basic powers, a shortened skill list, and just enough mechanics for newbies to get their feet wet. There could even be one for each genre - or the genre books could have a chapter catering to the 'Light' players. The 5E Chapions sourcebook has a chapter or two like this, with random powersets and a generic description of archetypes.

And for the long-time players, you have the Toolkit edition, which is set up like the HERO System we all know, love, and have supported over the years. If you've done HERO's Light correctly, a new player should be able to step up from Light to Toolkit without too much trouble... and should be enthusiastic about doing so!

I've posted about this before, but YES.

[The Main Man]

SPD's of 13+ should not be hard to explain.

1. Explain the SPD chart
2. Overlap the SPD chart another SPD chart and couple it with a stop sign.

[CTaylor]

Superhero with 13 speed moves on every phase, plus twice on 12. Come phase 12, he punches a guy then declares a recovery. Does he get it?

[The Main Man]

*The Main Man prepares a fort. A HUGE fort.*

Here's a simplified use of SPD taken from Palladium-

*The Main Man ducks and covers* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs3JE4WRL-8&feature=related)

[The Main Man]

Anyways, this idea involves everyone having the same Phases until their SPD runs out, with no REC until the last Phase is done.

Example: SPD 3, SPD 4, and SPD 5 PC's go at it.
The first three Phases play out in DEX Order, but when the next Phase comes up, SPD 3 man is left in the dust as SPD 4 and SPD 5 guys continue, upon which SPD 5 gets one more action and then they start again.

It's simple but not regimented.

[Vulcan]

Perhaps it could be an optional system for Rifts Heros. As the main combat mechanic? I don't think so.

Besides, Steve and co. would almost have to get copytight permission from Palladium to use it, it's so close to their system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Anyways, this idea involves everyone having the same Phases until their SPD runs out, with no REC until the last Phase is done.

Example: SPD 3, SPD 4, and SPD 5 PC's go at it.
The first three Phases play out in DEX Order, but when the next Phase comes up, SPD 3 man is left in the dust as SPD 4 and SPD 5 guys continue, upon which SPD 5 gets one more action and then they start again.

It's simple but not regimented.

If I have the low SPD, my only rational action is to use my last phase to turtle up - all levels to DCV, Dodge, shift Multi to defensive powers. If I've got 3 SPD and you have 7, that's four of your phases my all out defense covers, negating much of your advantage.

OTOH, you can Haymaker with impunity, make maneuvers that halve your DCV or otherwise penalize you, etc, secure in the knowledge you have lots of actions before I get another.

[The Main Man]

If I have the low SPD, my only rational action is to use my last phase to turtle up - all levels to DCV, Dodge, shift Multi to defensive powers. If I've got 3 SPD and you have 7, that's four of your phases my all out defense covers, negating much of your advantage.

OTOH, you can Haymaker with impunity, make maneuvers that halve your DCV or otherwise penalize you, etc, secure in the knowledge you have lots of actions before I get another.

Sounds like "extreme" checks and balances, but it's nothing that cannot already occur in normal "SPD Chart" style combat.

But I am not knocking the SPD Chart rather that I am throwing out alternatives.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sounds like "extreme" checks and balances, but it's nothing that cannot already occur in normal "SPD Chart" style combat.

But I am not knocking the SPD Chart rather that I am throwing out alternatives.

Under the typical SPD chart, the 3 SPD character can't impact over half the 7 SPD character's phases by a single one of his own. With the order going 737373777 PS12 737373777, the entire bolded section is impacted if the 3 SPD character dodges at the start of the sequence. The SPD chart spaces them out as 7737737773 PS 12 7737737773, so the most the 3 SPD character can affect are three phases of 7 by Turtling in phase 8.

A less extreme example may be 3 SPD vs 6 SPD. Your model has 636363666 Ph 12 636363666, so 3 can still catch 4 of 6's phases by using his third action to turtle up. Under the current model, they act 663663663 PH 12 663663663, so the 3 SPD can never affect more than two of SPD 6's phases, and he gets the same benefit whenever he turtles up.

Of course, your model also gives 6 SPD the advantage of four phases in a row unanswered, while the current model gives him 2 in a row for every action of the 3 SPD character. Toss in Aborts and Reserves, and I think allowing higher SPD's all their extra actions uninterrupted becomes unbalancing, as does changing the significance of which phase the slower character turtles up on.

[PhilFleischmann]

If I have the low SPD, my only rational action is to use my last phase to turtle up - all levels to DCV, Dodge, shift Multi to defensive powers. If I've got 3 SPD and you have 7, that's four of your phases my all out defense covers, negating much of your advantage.
Exactly! That's one other reason why faster characters should go first. The additional actions/segment of SPD>12 characters should come *before* other actions.

Granted, I only tried this once, and my 500-point, 24 SPD villain got his ass handed to him by a single 350-point character. It failed so miserably, that I didn't bother trying again. Perhaps I will eventually. Maybe I used the wrong strategy.

[The Main Man]

Exactly! That's one other reason why faster characters should go first. The additional actions/segment of SPD>12 characters should come *before* other actions.

Granted, I only tried this once, and my 500-point, 24 SPD villain got his ass handed to him by a single 350-point character. It failed so miserably, that I didn't bother trying again. Perhaps I will eventually. Maybe I used the wrong strategy.

I figure that it's logical for SPD > 12 C's to take their phases first too.

[SteveZilla]

I figure that it's logical for SPD > 12 C's to take their phases first too.

But that wouldn't mean that a DEX 10 SPD 15 character would go before a DEX 40 SPD 6 character on the first Phase of combat (Phase 12), right?

[PhilFleischmann]

But that wouldn't mean that a DEX 10 SPD 15 character would go before a DEX 40 SPD 6 character on the first Phase of combat (Phase 12), right?
Yes, and after. And the same thing again in segment 4. Like this:

Segment - Actions
12 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
1 - Mr. Fifteen
2 - SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
3 - Mr. Fifteen
4 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
5 - Mr. Fifteen
6 - SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
7 - Mr. Fifteen
8 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
9 - Mr. Fifteen
10 - SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
11 - Mr. Fifteen
12 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen

[SteveZilla]

Yes, and after. And the same thing again in segment 4. Like this:

Segment - Actions
12 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
1 - Mr. Fifteen
2 - SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
3 - Mr. Fifteen
4 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
5 - Mr. Fifteen
6 - SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
7 - Mr. Fifteen
8 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
9 - Mr. Fifteen
10 - SixMan, Mr. Fifteen
11 - Mr. Fifteen
12 - Mr. Fifteen, SixMan, Mr. Fifteen

IMO SPD should not be able to substitue for DEX. For example:

DEX 20 SPD 24 would go on 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, 8, 8a, 9, 9a, 10, 10a, 11, 11a, 12, 12a.

DEX 30, SPD 13 (12+1) would go on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

So they both go on Phase 12 and Phase 7a, but despite having a higher SPD, DEX is still used to determine order of actions within a Phase -- which means DEX 30 goes first on those two Phases. This is consistent with the current system of DEX/SPD, just allowing SPD to be uncapped.

[Hugh Neilson]

But that wouldn't mean that a DEX 10 SPD 15 character would go before a DEX 40 SPD 6 character on the first Phase of combat (Phase 12), right?

Both SPD and DEX govern combat order. A SPD 3 DEX 75 character goes after a SPD 4 DEX 1 character. Their sequence over a turn will be 4343434 PS12 4343434. In order to allow SPD 24, we have to add another 12 phases to the turn. These are essentially overlaid within the existing 12 segments, but essentially constitute their own separate phases.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Both SPD and DEX govern combat order. A SPD 3 DEX 75 character goes after a SPD 4 DEX 1 character. Their sequence over a turn will be 4343434 PS12 4343434. In order to allow SPD 24, we have to add another 12 phases to the turn. These are essentially overlaid within the existing 12 segments, but essentially constitute their own separate phases.
What Steve is pointing out is that on the opening segment of combat, usually segment 12, the SPD 20 DEX 1 character will go before the SPD 12 DEX 75 character.

I don't see this as a huge problem, however, since my guess is that characters with SPD > 12 will be very rare indeed.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

1. Most speedsters don't behave like maqny of the above examples in the comics.
2. If you have a ton of your actions beofre everyone else or after it is a Huge probem. Shadowrun had that problem in first or second edition so they had to scrap it and change it out.

V&V can run into that problem, but it is easily fixed.

[Chris Goodwin]

Essentially each Phase is divided into "subphases". Everyone with SPD >12 goes on the first subphase, in DEX order, then everyone with a Phase that Segment goes on the second subphase, in DEX order.

So, the guy with SPD 14, DEX 5, has two subphases on segments 6 and 12. He takes his first subphases on those segments, in his DEX order, then he takes his second subphase in DEX order. If there were another guy at SPD 26, DEX 3, then in 6 and 12 he'd go on the first subphase. On the second subphase, 14/5 guy goes first, then 26/3 guy, then on the third subphase everyone goes in DEX order.

[Tonio]

What Steve is pointing out is that on the opening segment of combat, usually segment 12, the SPD 20 DEX 1 character will go before the SPD 12 DEX 75 character.

I don't see this as a huge problem, however, since my guess is that characters with SPD > 12 will be very rare indeed.

- Klaus

Not necessarily. Combat starts out at segment 12 presumably so that everybody has an action. When considering SPDs higher than 12, we're really adding segments between the 12 "normal" segments, and giving SPD 13+ characters Phases in those segments. A SPD 24 character doesn't really go twice in every segment, but rather once in each of the 12 segments, and once in each of the new segments that go between those.

So if combat starts on segment 12, the SPD 13+ characters only have that action, and go on their regular DEX. The "extra actions" aren't really on segment 12, but on the new segment between 11 and 12.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not necessarily. Combat starts out at segment 12 presumably so that everybody has an action. When considering SPDs higher than 12, we're really adding segments between the 12 "normal" segments, and giving SPD 13+ characters Phases in those segments. A SPD 24 character doesn't really go twice in every segment, but rather once in each of the 12 segments, and once in each of the new segments that go between those.

So if combat starts on segment 12, the SPD 13+ characters only have that action, and go on their regular DEX. The "extra actions" aren't really on segment 12, but on the new segment between 11 and 12.

Solid, simple solution - repped.

[Vulcan]

And now that we've sorted out how to deal with the rather rare instance of SPD > 12 Characters, are there any other issues that need dealing with?

[PhilFleischmann]

Another way to think about it, or to resolve it, is to make a new SPD chart with more phases. I didn't suggest it before, because it might be seen as too complicated.

For Example, you could have a 24-phase chart. Each "segment" is in this case a half-second. A 24-spd character would act every phase. A 12-SPD would act only on the even-numbered phases.

[SteveZilla]

Both SPD and DEX govern combat order. A SPD 3 DEX 75 character goes after a SPD 4 DEX 1 character. Their sequence over a turn will be 4343434 PS12 4343434.

What about that first Phase 12 that all combat starts on? At the start of combat on Phase 12, SPD 3 DEX 75 goes *before* SPD 4 DEX 1.


Phase Actions:
12 #3, #4
PF12
3 #4
4 #3
6 #4
8 #3
9 #4
12 #3, #4

In order to allow SPD 24, we have to add another 12 phases to the turn. These are essentially overlaid within the existing 12 segments, but essentially constitute their own separate phases.

I agree that (if SPD > 12 is allowed) they should be their own seperate phases. I was making a mental mistake, however. I was putting the extra Segments (1a, 2a, 3a, etc.) after the regular segments (1, 2, 3, etc.), which is incorrect. Since each incriment of SPD moves the first Phase in a turn sooner (on average) within a Turn, any extra Segments for the SPD 13+ should come before the regular Segment.

For example, SPD 13 would get all 12 regular phases, and 1 more Phase in similar fashion as the only Phase a SPD 1 gets (in the middle of the Turn). SPD 1 acts on Segment 7, so the Segment for having 1 point more than 12 SPD would happen on Segment 7a, which logically would fall before, not after, the regular Segment 7 (from SPD 1).

SPD 24 would get his first Segment on 1a, which would be before the Segment 1 for a SPD 12.

However, Combat still starts on Segment 12 -- not 12a (which is before 12) -- when everybody has an action (except for the poor schmuck who sold back all but 1 SPD). And then it comes down to DEX order within that (or any) Segment.

[SteveZilla]

What Steve is pointing out is that on the opening segment of combat, usually segment 12, the SPD 20 DEX 1 character will go before the SPD 12 DEX 75 character.

I don't see this as a huge problem, however, since my guess is that characters with SPD > 12 will be very rare indeed.

Rarity shouldn't be a reason to allow a loophole in the rules. :)

[Grail Quest]

What about a V&V-style multi-action system?

Suppose Reaction = the lower of INT or DEX (this system doesn't yet account for 0 or negative Reaction).

And Initiative = Reaction x SPD + 3d6.

Then, whoever has the highest Initiative goes first. When they finish their action, they subtract their Reaction from the remaining Initiative. They get at most SPD actions.

When a character Aborts, they do their Abort action, and subtract Reaction from their Initiative.

[Vulcan]

Sounds like we're writing the 6E Ultimate Speedster already. ;)

[Netzilla]

Another way to think about it, or to resolve it, is to make a new SPD chart with more phases. I didn't suggest it before, because it might be seen as too complicated.

For Example, you could have a 24-phase chart. Each "segment" is in this case a half-second. A 24-spd character would act every phase. A 12-SPD would act only on the even-numbered phases.

I think the concept of this might be good the mention in the rules but we don't want to devote too much space in the book on it. Perhaps a side-bar mentioning a different SPD chart for the Heroic scale using only 6 phases of 2 seconds each (or 4 phases of 3 seconds each). Then it should be pretty easy for players to extrapolate that out into growing the Speed Chart to 24+ phases. If more detail is felt to be needed, that can go into The Ultimate Speedster 6E.

[Netzilla]

What about a V&V-style multi-action system?

Suppose Reaction = the lower of INT or DEX (this system doesn't yet account for 0 or negative Reaction).

And Initiative = Reaction x SPD + 3d6.

Then, whoever has the highest Initiative goes first. When they finish their action, they subtract their Reaction from the remaining Initiative. They get at most SPD actions.

When a character Aborts, they do their Abort action, and subtract Reaction from their Initiative.

That works okay so long as you're in the normal human range. However, at the superheroic range you run into the problem of the faster character getting 3+ (or more) unanswered actions before his target gets one. The problems with front or back loading actions like this has been posted by others just a few pages earlier in the thread. This was one of the more annoying balance issues I recalled from playing V&V 25 or so (has it really been that long) ago.

[Grail Quest]

That works okay so long as you're in the normal human range. However, at the superheroic range you run into the problem of the faster character getting 3+ (or more) unanswered actions before his target gets one. The problems with front or back loading actions like this has been posted by others just a few pages earlier in the thread. This was one of the more annoying balance issues I recalled from playing V&V 25 or so (has it really been that long) ago.

The main thing here is to remove the SPD chart lookup and add some uncertainty to the order of actions.

The front/back loading issues already exist in HERO, especially if you allow a full range of SPD to exist in a given game setting. This is (IMO) why for the most part, the characters presented for the Champions setting have a SPD of 5-6. If we continue the tradition of that that unstated convenience, then my proposal would simply eliminate having to look at the SPD chart.

Suppose you don't run things that way and in your supers (or any) setting anyone could show up with any SPD. The random factor mitigates things somewhat and makes it less mechanical, but that obviously still doesn't address a huge disparity in SPD and the initiative stat, whether it is DEX or INT or whatever.
Considering that someone is paying 10 points per point of SPD, I'm not convinced it is "unfair" to have several unanswered actions. This might have to come down to GM a house ruling on appropriate/allowed SPD for PCs--another traditional convenience, right up there with limits on DCs, CVs, etcetera.

[Hugh Neilson]

The main thing here is to remove the SPD chart lookup and add some uncertainty to the order of actions.

These are two separate, and very different, issues.

The front/back loading issues already exist in HERO, especially if you allow a full range of SPD to exist in a given game setting.

There are unanswered actions if the disparity is high enough. But backloading or frontloading worsens matters considerably. Let's take an extreme - 12 SPD (The Hare) vs 2 SPD (The Turtle).

Under a front/backloading system, they each move twice, then Hare moves 11 times (his last 10 plus the first one in the next turn), Turtle moves, Hare moves, Turtle moves, and Hare gets another 11 moves, and so on.

So Turtle should use his second phase to dodge, set all levels to DCV, shift his multipower from attacks to his armor (pull into his shell) and do everything he can to enhance his defenses. In other words, Turtle Up! Hare now has 11 phases during which Turtle has maximized his defensive abilities.

Under the current SPD section, Hare moves 6 times, then Turtle moves, then Hare moves another 6 times, then Turtle moves. If Turtle wants to attack, he has to be exposed to six retaliatory strikes. Under a front or back loading system, Turtle can attack once and be exposed to only one retaliatory strike.

How fair is that to Hare?

Considering that someone is paying 10 points per point of SPD, I'm not convinced it is "unfair" to have several unanswered actions.

Considering Hare paid 100 extra points for SPD, it seems unfair to me that Turtle can negate them all and effectively equalize their phases usable for effective attacks.

To randomness, there are lots of approaches which have been discussed above. But the decision of whether random is better or worse is purely subjective. D&D has eliminated much of the randomness attack order, with an order being determined at the start of each combat and then changing only if combatants delay.

[prestidigitator]

...and it's not like Hare can just hold some of his phases to equal things out because if he doesn't use one by the time the next phase comes up, he loses it. Holding phases (probably aborting as well) would need a few major exceptions and corner cases ironed out to try to balance out that system.

[Vulcan]

The main thing here is to remove the SPD chart lookup and add some uncertainty to the order of actions.

Between Hold, Abort, Hurry, and Hipshot, there are already plenty of options for breaking up the order of actions. Ramdomizing it would just complicate things - granted, that's only in my opinion. But you're probably right that there is enough demand for an optional rule to help your case.

Probably the best one I heard of was rolling a d6 and adding it to each character's DEX. I don't know if it was supposed to be once per combat, per turn, or per phase. I suppose any of them could be used by GM's who were willing to deal with the extra paperwork and complication. But it should definitely be an optional rule. The basic rule should be as simple and straightforward as it can be made and still retain that core HEROs mechnic - the SPD chart.

As for the SPD chart lookup (assuming you mean what I think you mean), every character has their individual SPD chart on the sheet. And smart GM's make up a combat chart so they can keep track of everything. It's not that big a deal with a little foresight.

Suppose you don't run things that way and in your supers (or any) setting anyone could show up with any SPD. The random factor mitigates things somewhat and makes it less mechanical, but that obviously still doesn't address a huge disparity in SPD and the initiative stat, whether it is DEX or INT or whatever.
Considering that someone is paying 10 points per point of SPD, I'm not convinced it is "unfair" to have several unanswered actions. This might have to come down to GM a house ruling on appropriate/allowed SPD for PCs--another traditional convenience, right up there with limits on DCs, CVs, etcetera.

In my experience, the idea of 'unanswered actions' rarely comes up until the end of the fight. Generally, someone with several actions has to take into account the actions of their opponent's whole team, not just the guy in front of them. This is because high DEX & SPD characters are usually a little deficient in the defenses (because they spent so much on DEX & SPD). They can't afford to blow several actions on one guy, lest his buddies blindside them.

Granted, this isn't always the case, and your experience may be different.

[SCUBA Hero]

This one came up in last night's game:

5ER, page 364: "Adding or removing velocity is a Zero Phase Action, but characters can do it only once per Phase, unless the GM rules otherwise."

Why? I never understood this (probably some game-balance issue).

Which leads into:

Right now we have Full Phase Actions, Half Phase Actions, Zero Phase Actions, Actions Which Take No Time, and Attack Actions. But almost all Zero Phase Actions (using Casual STR is an exception) have the caveat that you can generally only do them once per Phase, such as shifting MP slots, skill levels, and acceleration. Consider from the ground up what type of Actions are available and clearly delineate them.

Also, then check all text to make sure there is agreement. For example (5ER, pages 363 - 364) Full Phase Actions state that "Full Phase Actions take a character's entire Phase; he can do nothing else and take no other Actions that Phase", while Zero Phase Actions state that "A character may perform as many Zero Phase Actions as he wishes at the beginning of a Phase or after performing a Half Phase Action, but not after performing an Attack Action or a Full Phase Action." These statements are on the same 'level'; there is no specific overrides general principle here. So, can a character take Zero Phase Actions before a Full Phase Action or not?

[Vulcan]

An official ruling on this in the book would be nice...

[PhilFleischmann]

I think the concept of this might be good the mention in the rules but we don't want to devote too much space in the book on it. Perhaps a side-bar mentioning a different SPD chart for the Heroic scale using only 6 phases of 2 seconds each (or 4 phases of 3 seconds each). Then it should be pretty easy for players to extrapolate that out into growing the Speed Chart to 24+ phases. If more detail is felt to be needed, that can go into The Ultimate Speedster 6E.
Right. In a heroic-level game, where no one has a speed more than say, 5, you really don't need a 12-phase chart (though it can still be useful to help adjudicate things like Haymakers and other +1 Segment actions). You could use a 6-phase chart (2 seconds per phase), or 5-phase chart (2.4 seconds per phase).

And related to this, but slightly off-topic, is the idea of using a longer SPD chart that actually represents a longer period of time. This allows for greater granularity of SPD values, which may be useful for lower-powered games. I like to use a one-minute speed chart (60 phases), SPD chars are then multiplied by 5, so that your SPD represents the number of actions you have *per minute*. Each point of SPD then costs (10/5) = 2 points, and your base SPD is [(1+DEX/10)x5] = 5+DEX/2. So in games where SPDs would normally be 2-4 (three possible values with large gaps between them), they can now be 10-20 (eleven possible values with much smaller gaps between them). (Granted, this would be more appropriate on the Characteristics thread, but it was similar to the discussion here.)

[Talon]

Right now we have Full Phase Actions, Half Phase Actions, Zero Phase Actions, Actions Which Take No Time, and Attack Actions. But almost all Zero Phase Actions (using Casual STR is an exception) have the caveat that you can generally only do them once per Phase, such as shifting MP slots, skill levels, and acceleration. Consider from the ground up what type of Actions are available and clearly delineate them.

Amen to this. D&D did a good job of this, or at least a good try at this, with swift, immediate, etc. actions.

[The Main Man]

Right. In a heroic-level game, where no one has a speed more than say, 5, you really don't need a 12-phase chart (though it can still be useful to help adjudicate things like Haymakers and other +1 Segment actions). You could use a 6-phase chart (2 seconds per phase), or 5-phase chart (2.4 seconds per phase).

And related to this, but slightly off-topic, is the idea of using a longer SPD chart that actually represents a longer period of time. This allows for greater granularity of SPD values, which may be useful for lower-powered games. I like to use a one-minute speed chart (60 phases), SPD chars are then multiplied by 5, so that your SPD represents the number of actions you have *per minute*. Each point of SPD then costs (10/5) = 2 points, and your base SPD is [(1+DEX/10)x5] = 5+DEX/2. So in games where SPDs would normally be 2-4 (three possible values with large gaps between them), they can now be 10-20 (eleven possible values with much smaller gaps between them). (Granted, this would be more appropriate on the Characteristics thread, but it was similar to the discussion here.)

I was also pondering this concept.


What if the SPD chart was based on 10 Segments instead of 12?


What if there was a future supplement that addressed alternative SPD Charts?

[technoshaman]

I am not sure if this is the right place for this question and I do not want to start a flamewar also. I have from a friend that 6e might become a class-based system and this is all become of Champions online. Is this true? I want to get something offical.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I am not sure if this is the right place for this question and I do not want to start a flamewar also. I have from a friend that 6e might become a class-based system and this is all become of Champions online. Is this true? I want to get something offical.
From what I've heard, the online Champions game will only use the Champions setting, not the rules. It is quite likely that the online game will be class-based, but nothing suggests that 6e will be.

- klaus

[BobGreenwade]

I am not sure if this is the right place for this question and I do not want to start a flamewar also. I have from a friend that 6e might become a class-based system and this is all become of Champions online. Is this true? I want to get something offical.

From what I've heard, the online Champions game will only use the Champions setting, not the rules. It is quite likely that the online game will be class-based, but nothing suggests that 6e will be.The MMO was originally going to be designed with a class-based system, but the Devs rethought it and tossed the idea.

Hero 6th Ed will almost definitely not become class-based. We already have Professional Package Deals to simulate that general idea where it might be needed, and that's fine for everyone.

[The Main Man]

6e becoming class-based would be The Ultimate Dealbreaker.

But yeah, Package Deals take care of all that (and better IMO) already so there's no need.

[Vulcan]

There are only a couple of deal-breakers for me.

No characteristics (which I went over in detail already)
No SPD chart (I don't really want to see it changed either, but that wouldn't be an automatic dealbreaker.)
Class-based systems

I'm sure there's another one or two, but I can't think of them offhand...

[Talon]

I'm thinking that the Hero Company forum is probably a better place to get an official answer, since Steve isn't reading these threads at present.

[Vulcan]

Wasn't really looking for one, just posting my opinion.;)

[SteveZilla]

Wasn't really looking for one, just posting my opinion.;)

But Technoshaman was looking for something official. ;)

[Vulcan]

Had to go back and look to figure out what you meant.

Whoops!

[AnotherSkip]

He could probably search all of Steves 10 K posts to find the ones referencing CO. for the straight dope as it were.

[Acme]

Just trying to summarize here, but based on posts here and regarding D&D 4, I get the impression that:

D&D 4 is not at all the same game as previous editions, but some people like it anyway. Those who object generally preferred previous editions.

HERO 6 is being compared to D&D 4, and the same concerns are popping up. Some people, then, are looking for a completely new system which they will find fun to play, while others are afraid that the system they love will be, like D&D, completely unlike previous editions.

I have no problem with a few minor changes to help clean up game play (I really liked the idea to treat Comeliness like the Reputation Perk, for instance) but some of the major changes I've seen here would make HERO 6 a completely different game for me.

Here's another idea: if enough people want some of the more radical changes implemented, could they be included in another, unrelated game system (call it ADVENTURER, or something) and also distributed by DOJ?
More books sold, everyone gets what they want, everybody wins! :cheers:

Just my $0.02CDN.

[AnotherSkip]

Hey Hey hey watch the COM Comments this subject is ready to explode....

[Talon]

HERO 6 is being compared to D&D 4, and the same concerns are popping up. Some people, then, are looking for a completely new system which they will find fun to play, while others are afraid that the system they love will be, like D&D, completely unlike previous editions.

I would like to think that 6E is going to be more like D&D 3, which was a major overhaul that streamlined the system, but produced a game that was clearly still D&D.

[James Gillen]

I would like to think that 6E is going to be more like D&D 3, which was a major overhaul that streamlined the system, but produced a game that was clearly still D&D.

I should hope so.

jg

[Talon]

While running at GenCon (I run games that attract a lot of people who are new to Hero), I noticed that the concept of levels was causing some difficulty. I realized that the way Hero describes levels is at odds with how other games use the same langugage.

When many other games say "+3 with X", they mean a more or less permanent bonus. What Hero means is really more of a pool, where you have 3 points that can be allocated differently each round. I wonder if it would help Hero become more accessible to change the terminology of levels (not the mechanics!) in this manner.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to see a real way to honestly do absolute effects such as true invulnerability, automatic hit, and automatic kill, without kludges that make it not really absolute. I always hear "It would be unbalancing to the game," but in 5e, the trend has been to give power to the rules and trust the GM to not let it get out of hand. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce absolute effects to the game.

[Markdoc]

I'd like to see a real way to honestly do absolute effects such as true invulnerability, automatic hit, and automatic kill, without kludges that make it not really absolute. I always hear "It would be unbalancing to the game," but in 5e, the trend has been to give power to the rules and trust the GM to not let it get out of hand. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce absolute effects to the game.

Whereas I really, really, really hope that Hero stays away now and forever from absolute effects. By their very nature, they are not a rules mechanic friendly concept. There's no way of measuring exactly how totally invulnerable you are or how much it should cost, since you are essentially buying "infinite defence". But put it in the rules and players will want to buy it. As a GM, I really don't want to adjudicate if the guy with the attack that always kills can harm the guy who's totally invulnerable, or if the guy who always dodges attacks can dodge the attack that always hits.

And yeah, the GM can always say no. But it's a terrible idea, IMO, to put a rule in the ruleset where 90+% of the time the GM is going to have to say no. As a rule of thumb, if the basic idea is "This will almost never be appropriate or used" then it doesn't belong in the rules.

Because GM's can also always say yes. It's far easier (and cleaner) to houserule absolute effects into those rare games that want them, than to extract them from the vast majority of games that don't use them. Like it or not, what's in the official rules shapes the game: it's our consensus starting point.

Edit: and as it stands, there is an easy way to buy invulnerability: buy more defenses than any attack can generate in damage. If that's too expensive .. well, that tells you how much invulnerability should cost. Likewise attacks that always kill - just buy an attack big enough to kill anyone.

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

I'd like to see a real way to honestly do absolute effects such as true invulnerability, automatic hit, and automatic kill, without kludges that make it not really absolute. I always hear "It would be unbalancing to the game," but in 5e, the trend has been to give power to the rules and trust the GM to not let it get out of hand. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce absolute effects to the game.

I'd like to echo Markdoc. I dont want HERO to include absolutes into its core rules. My problem would also be competing absolutes.

However, I would like to see a section on absolutes and how GMs could design their games to contain them. I have been putting together a game based on HERO in which the characters will have Marvel style descriptors to their skills - good, excellent, heroic etc and I wanted someone with Heroic combat to always win against someone with excellent combat. The way I decided to do that was step up the levels with 5 CV increases. So someone with Heroic combat would have a 5 CV advantage over someone with Excellent combat - played out that would be almost guaranteed a victory but isn't absolute. In my game it is. I have decided that as GM.

It is possible to add absolutes to the game, it would be useful to have a discussion somewhere to show people how to make those decisions for their games.


Doc

[Markdoc]

It is possible to add absolutes to the game, it would be useful to have a discussion somewhere to show people how to make those decisions for their games.


Doc

The simplest way is to do what you suggested: work out the cost for a power that fulfils the criteria (in this case 95%+ seems to be good enough), but retain the mechanics "behind the scenes". So +5 CV bonus (to use your example) "always hits": the GM decides you don't need to roll. But that means an attack that "always hits" might not in fact "always hit" - against a target with a very high CV. "Invulnerability" can be defined as "4 DEF per DC of attack" so that a character would need 32 DEF to be immune to small arms fire. But that wouldn't make him invulnerable to a tank's main gun.

This fulfills your criteria, but does not grant "total immunity" or "always hits" against every foe. The problem here is that even if you use the existing power level as your criteria (buying enough DEF to be invulnerable to any attack/effect in the game) eventually something will come along to break your absolute (and if it doesn't the story tends to stagnate).

That's why the same problem exists in the source material. Are there any invulnerable characters? Superman clearly isn't invulnerable. He gets beaten up and hurt all the time - heck, some guy beat him to death with his fists, when he was at full power. Is there anyone who can't be beaten? The Beyonder was supposed to be the ultimate power in the Universe and he got taken out by Molecule Man, for heaven's sakes. Shucks, even Dazzler kicked his ass at one point, which is pretty embarrassing. So, even in the source materials there don't seem to be any absolutes - and that's in a setting where the authors have more or less total control over all the characters.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

There is another problem with introducing absolutes: In high-powered campaigns, buying absolute attacks/defenses will be relatively cheaper; hence, all characters are likely to buy them.

In some high-powered campaigns I have played in, all player characters had Full Life Support (one of the few examples of absolutes in HERO). If there had been more absolutes, like 100% Damage Reduction, I am sure all the PCs would have that as well.

HERO is open-ended in character power; that only works if it is also open-ended in powers.

- Klaus

[David Blue]

There seem to be plenty of characters with absolute powers, especially protection against normal bullets. (As opposed to special bullets of kryptonite, argonite etc.) Bulletproof characters don't flinch or fall down every fourth or fifth time they get hit, when the stun lottery nails them. They are absolutely immune. Gunfire means less to them than raindrops.

[Doc Democracy]

There seem to be plenty of characters with absolute powers, especially protection against normal bullets. (As opposed to special bullets of kryptonite, argonite etc.) Bulletproof characters don't flinch or fall down every fourth or fifth time they get hit, when the stun lottery nails them. They are absolutely immune. Gunfire means less to them than raindrops.

It is a matter of power level. The default power level does not allow you to buy defences that shrug off the default level of STUN that gunfire does.

A 3D6 killing attack will do, at maximum, 90 STUN. To shrug that off you need 90 PD, 18 of it resistant.

Now, as a GM, I might provide a package in the powers mix as 45 PD - only versus real weapons (+1/2) for 30 points.

That means that a brick choosing to buy 45 PD can make himself immune to normal weapons for an additional 30 points. Not a huge expense for the ability to walk through a hail of gunfire from even large machine guns.

That is immunity in HERO. That is an absolute in HERO as long as the GM lives up to the contract not to introduce real weapons with more than 3D6K.

Doc

[Klaus Mogensen]

Mutants & Masterminds has an interesting take on immunity to damage: You can buy an advantage to toughness that means you ignore damage under a certain level; however, this adds no protection against damage of higher levels.

In Hero terms, this could be a power that grants immunity to damage up to a certain damage class. This isn't totally unlike how Force Walls protects fully from attacks that do under a certain level of BODY. In fact, it is kind of strange that this type of immunity only is available to Force Walls and not to other types of protection. Some sort of generalisation could be nice.

- Klaus

[James Gillen]

I'd like to echo Markdoc. I dont want HERO to include absolutes into its core rules. My problem would also be competing absolutes.

However, I would like to see a section on absolutes and how GMs could design their games to contain them. I have been putting together a game based on HERO in which the characters will have Marvel style descriptors to their skills - good, excellent, heroic etc and I wanted someone with Heroic combat to always win against someone with excellent combat. The way I decided to do that was step up the levels with 5 CV increases. So someone with Heroic combat would have a 5 CV advantage over someone with Excellent combat - played out that would be almost guaranteed a victory but isn't absolute. In my game it is. I have decided that as GM.

It is possible to add absolutes to the game, it would be useful to have a discussion somewhere to show people how to make those decisions for their games.


Doc

You already had an Absolute Effects Rule in Fantasy HERO so it shouldn't be too hard to apply the idea generally.

jg

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd like to see a real way to honestly do absolute effects such as true invulnerability, automatic hit, and automatic kill, without kludges that make it not really absolute. I always hear "It would be unbalancing to the game," but in 5e, the trend has been to give power to the rules and trust the GM to not let it get out of hand. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce absolute effects to the game.

I echo the sentiment that competing absolutes become problematic. What happens when my "always hits" character fires on your character who can "always evade"? When my "automatic kill" power hits your "invulnerable" character, what happens? Since one of the two must prevail, one of the two is not absolute.

There seem to be plenty of characters with absolute powers, especially protection against normal bullets. (As opposed to special bullets of kryptonite, argonite etc.) Bulletproof characters don't flinch or fall down every fourth or fifth time they get hit, when the stun lottery nails them. They are absolutely immune. Gunfire means less to them than raindrops.

They have enough defenses against gunfire to be truly immune. And not every "bulletprooof" character is completely immune to bullets. While Superman doesn't flinch, Robotman has to hammer out the dents and Luke Cage complains about bruises.

Mutants & Masterminds has an interesting take on immunity to damage: You can buy an advantage to toughness that means you ignore damage under a certain level; however, this adds no protection against damage of higher levels.

In Hero terms, this could be a power that grants immunity to damage up to a certain damage class. This isn't totally unlike how Force Walls protects fully from attacks that do under a certain level of BODY. In fact, it is kind of strange that this type of immunity only is available to Force Walls and not to other types of protection. Some sort of generalisation could be nice.

I definitely agree that there should be a power which would be to Force Wall power what armor is to Force Field. It would need to be costed appropriately, and would probably need a stop sign, but it should exist.

[Chris Goodwin]

Whereas I really, really, really hope that Hero stays away now and forever from absolute effects. By their very nature, they are not a rules mechanic friendly concept. There's no way of measuring exactly how totally invulnerable you are or how much it should cost, since you are essentially buying "infinite defence". But put it in the rules and players will want to buy it. As a GM, I really don't want to adjudicate if the guy with the attack that always kills can harm the guy who's totally invulnerable, or if the guy who always dodges attacks can dodge the attack that always hits.

You don't have to. You don't have to allow absolute effects in your game at all. But if they're not there, no one can use them.

Because GM's can also always say yes. It's far easier (and cleaner) to houserule absolute effects into those rare games that want them, than to extract them from the vast majority of games that don't use them. Like it or not, what's in the official rules shapes the game: it's our consensus starting point.

But the GM has to essentially become the game designer.

I'd like to echo Markdoc. I dont want HERO to include absolutes into its core rules. My problem would also be competing absolutes.

I echo the sentiment that competing absolutes become problematic. What happens when my "always hits" character fires on your character who can "always evade"? When my "automatic kill" power hits your "invulnerable" character, what happens? Since one of the two must prevail, one of the two is not absolute.

GM call. So there should be a section on how to adjudicate this. At the moment, there isn't.

If I want to run a game with absolute effects in it, right now I have to do all of the work. I have to figure out how to build the mechanics, because currently there are no mechanics that support them, unless I port them in from somewhere else (say, The Primal Order).

If they're there, as GM you don't have to use them. But if they're not there (and they aren't) you can't use them.

Why do you want to take a tool away from me? You're cold, so I have to put on a sweater?

You can't build a Power that hits 100% of the time. You can build a Power that, effectively, hits almost all characters, 99.53% of the time. So why is that last .47% so hard to swallow?

I can build an effect that can blow up the world. But I can't, for instance, build, for instance, On A Pale Horse's Death, who can take any character's soul. He can only do it 99.53% of the time.

I'm willing to have a section that says, absolute effects aren't absolute. Everything has to have a defense, and I'm okay with that. Every absolute defense has to have a hole in it, and I'm okay with that too. But I can't even build those.

[Hugh Neilson]

You don't have to. You don't have to allow absolute effects in your game at all. But if they're not there, no one can use them.

What's wrong with the FH absolute effect of "purchase enough of the ability that it will be effective 99.53% of the time, based on the campaign maxima, and agree between GM and players that this is now an absolute"?

If the maximum DCV in the campaign is 15, 20 with a Martial Dodge, and you buy your OCV to 27 with the specific attack so you hit that on an 18-, what's wrong with you as GM saying "I'm OK with an absolute effect - that attack always hits"?

The big advantage of this over any other "absolute" mechanic is that it scales. If the maximum DCV in a low powered game is 8, 11 with a Dodge, "always hits" is much cheaper than in a game where the maximum DCV is 25, 30 with a Martial Dodge. So we don't set a price so high that it's ludicrous in some games, or so low that it becomes an automatic in other games.

GM call. So there should be a section on how to adjudicate this. At the moment, there isn't.

GM call? Chris, I bought this power to always hit, and you agreed it would ALWAYS hit. Now you're telling me it's a judgment call? That sounds a lot less absolute. [Of course, the other player is saying Chris, I bought this power to always be missed, and you agreed its use guaranteed I would ALWAYS be missed. Now you're telling me it's a judgment call?]

That sounds a lot less absolute.

Just like "I'm 100% invulnerable to fire" [because it's a heroic game where we can't imagine a power over 15 DC and I bought 150 ED only vs fire, 30 resistant so a 5d6 KA can't touch me] coming into contact with the "Flames of Perdition" which you bought as a burst of searing hellfire that ALWAYS kills its target. One of us does not have an absolute effect.

[The Main Man]

"The unstoppable force meets the immovable object."

[Vulcan]

There seem to be plenty of characters with absolute powers, especially protection against normal bullets. (As opposed to special bullets of kryptonite, argonite etc.) Bulletproof characters don't flinch or fall down every fourth or fifth time they get hit, when the stun lottery nails them. They are absolutely immune. Gunfire means less to them than raindrops.

I agree that KA's are flawed in their current incarnation. In the 'Powers - K' thread many proposals have bee made to bring them back into line with what they are supposed to be.

Hopefully this point will be moot in 6E.

[Vulcan]

You don't have to. You don't have to allow absolute effects in your game at all. But if they're not there, no one can use them.

But if they're there, all the players will want them. In some form or another.

You can't build a Power that hits 100% of the time. You can build a Power that, effectively, hits almost all characters, 99.53% of the time. So why is that last .47% so hard to swallow?

Because it doesn't hit the guy with five higher DCV than everyone else (and very low defenses to pay for it) 99.53% of the time.

The 'always hits' power robs me, the player, of an otherwise viable concept - the superdodging eggshell. It's hard to hit me, but once I'm hit I'm out. I paid a lot of points for that, and I can't even dive for cover?

The 'always kills' power robs me, the player, of an otherwise viable concept - the brick. It's hard to hurt me. Period. I paid a lot of points for that, and you can just autokill me?

No. Absolutes do not belong in HEROS.

I can build an effect that can blow up the world.

Sure, if you want to end the campaign.

But I can't, for instance, build, for instance, On A Pale Horse's Death, who can take any character's soul. He can only do it 99.53% of the time.

On the other hand, the targets whose souls Death was taking in that book were generally 0 DCV, being unconscious and/or dying (noted examples included a woman pinned in a car wreck and, a man pretty much tied into a hospital bed - both effectively entagled even if they weren't highly negative body at the time). A GM can apply handwavium against 0 DCV targets for that.

For that matter, Satan dodged the 'soul grab' repeatedly at the end of the book.

I'm willing to have a section that says, absolute effects aren't absolute. Everything has to have a defense, and I'm okay with that. Every absolute defense has to have a hole in it, and I'm okay with that too. But I can't even build those.

Now here I kinda agree with you. An absolute defense against limited special effects (a red dragon vs. fire/heat, for example) would be welcome. But a general absolute defense - or an absolute 'to hit,' or an absolute 'autokill,' or an absolute 'dodge,' for that matter - is a bit much.

[Chris Goodwin]

But if they're there, all the players will want them. In some form or another.

I'd be happy if they're segregated in a separate section, call it "Absolute HERO," with all kinds of warnings that say "You can't use any of these unless the GM says he's running an Absolute HERO game."

The 'always hits' power robs me, the player, of an otherwise viable concept - the superdodging eggshell. It's hard to hit me, but once I'm hit I'm out. I paid a lot of points for that, and I can't even dive for cover?

Okay, I'm thinking of, for instance, The Primal Order. An attack laced with primal energy always hits, unless the defender is using primal as well. Makes sense; it doesn't matter how high your DCV is, a god is going to paste you. As it stands in HERO, you can't build the guy who can't be hit, or the guy who can hit him.

No. Absolutes do not belong in HEROS.

What you're saying is, if I as GM want to run a game that includes absolutes, I can't use HERO.

Again, the 5th edition trend has been to provide the tools, and trust that the GM knows his game well enough to decide whether to allow them. Case in point: before 5e, there was never a resurrection ability in the HERO System. To do it, you had to bend over backwards, overbuild, ask the GM pretty please, and wave your hands a lot. In 5e we got one, and the world didn't come to an end.

Why is this one the line beyond which we can't cross?

Now here I kinda agree with you. An absolute defense against limited special effects (a red dragon vs. fire/heat, for example) would be welcome. But a general absolute defense - or an absolute 'to hit,' or an absolute 'autokill,' or an absolute 'dodge,' for that matter - is a bit much.

Okay. So we can look at it, and analyze it a bit. Instead of just saying "No, a thousand times no, never," we can maybe come up with something. Between The Primal Order and this, we can look at something like stepped power levels. A "normal" immunity doesn't protect against "cosmic" effects, a "cosmic" immunity doesn't protect against "universal" effects, a "universal" immunity doesn't protect against "primal" effects.

What's wrong with the FH absolute effect of "purchase enough of the ability that it will be effective 99.53% of the time, based on the campaign maxima, and agree between GM and players that this is now an absolute"?

If the maximum DCV in the campaign is 15, 20 with a Martial Dodge, and you buy your OCV to 27 with the specific attack so you hit that on an 18-, what's wrong with you as GM saying "I'm OK with an absolute effect - that attack always hits"?

The big advantage of this over any other "absolute" mechanic is that it scales. If the maximum DCV in a low powered game is 8, 11 with a Dodge, "always hits" is much cheaper than in a game where the maximum DCV is 25, 30 with a Martial Dodge. So we don't set a price so high that it's ludicrous in some games, or so low that it becomes an automatic in other games.

Okay, I obviously overlooked that whole piece.

GM call? Chris, I bought this power to always hit, and you agreed it would ALWAYS hit. Now you're telling me it's a judgment call? That sounds a lot less absolute. [Of course, the other player is saying Chris, I bought this power to always be missed, and you agreed its use guaranteed I would ALWAYS be missed. Now you're telling me it's a judgment call?]

That sounds a lot less absolute.

You have to do something when the irresistible force meets the immovable object. That points up a hole in the current rules; what happens when you have this situation? The GM call is to not allow this combination in the first place; if you're allowing an irresistible force don't allow an immovable object, or vice versa.

Just like "I'm 100% invulnerable to fire" [because it's a heroic game where we can't imagine a power over 15 DC and I bought 150 ED only vs fire, 30 resistant so a 5d6 KA can't touch me] coming into contact with the "Flames of Perdition" which you bought as a burst of searing hellfire that ALWAYS kills its target. One of us does not have an absolute effect.

There again, "stepped" absolutes can come into play -- and that's a piece we've never had.

[Vulcan]

I'd be happy if they're segregated in a separate section, call it "Absolute HERO," with all kinds of warnings that say "You can't use any of these unless the GM says he's running an Absolute HERO game."

All right. I can live with that. Just so long as it's explicit even beyond 'stop sign' powers. Having it in a separate section seems like a workable compromise to me.

[Doc Democracy]

Okay. So we can look at it, and analyze it a bit. Instead of just saying "No, a thousand times no, never," we can maybe come up with something. Between The Primal Order and this, we can look at something like stepped power levels. A "normal" immunity doesn't protect against "cosmic" effects, a "cosmic" immunity doesn't protect against "universal" effects, a "universal" immunity doesn't protect against "primal" effects.

To me this is not something that the game mechanics deal with - it is campaign design by the GM.

Now some people will have primal powers. These would only be available to certain categories of people. You can identify those people and what powers they have. If they buy CV then it is primal CV and those without primal CV use 0 regardless of their normal CV. If they buy EB then it is primal EB and defences are 0 unless they are primal. If they buy defences then they too are primal and attacks do not go through them unless they are primal.

To me it is all about identifying a different set of people that have different rules.

If you want to mix and match then you have to decide the value of being primal. I would suggest +2 - that is the advantage of affecting people while desolid, a common situation which is fairly analagous....

Something for a genre book or the Ultimate Toolkitting Book, I would suggest, rather than the core rules.

Doc

[Talon]

I like using the FH Absolute rules...and they conveniently handle a clash of absolutes. All the GM has to do is say "your OCV means you will always hit...except people who bought enough DCV for 'never get hit'. In that circumstance, normal OCV vs DCV rules apply."

[Talon]

Right now we have Full Phase Actions, Half Phase Actions, Zero Phase Actions, Actions Which Take No Time, and Attack Actions. But almost all Zero Phase Actions (using Casual STR is an exception) have the caveat that you can generally only do them once per Phase, such as shifting MP slots, skill levels, and acceleration. Consider from the ground up what type of Actions are available and clearly delineate them.

After doing some thinking on this, my list is not much longer than what's in the book:


Out-of-Phase Actions
0 Phase Actions
Half Phase Actions
Full Phase Actions
(Extra Segment Actions)
Attack Actions
Allocation Actions


The last two are modifiers to the rest -- you can have a Full Phase Attack Action (or a 0 Phase Attack Action, at least in theory).

Allocation actions are for setting MPs, allocating levels, etc. The simple rule is that once you allocate something, you can't reallocate until the end of the Segment (to do it before your next Phase requires Aborting of course). I would say that definition of "something" is fine-grained; you can allocate half your Multipower, move, then allocate the other half.

[James Gillen]

But the GM has to essentially become the game designer.

Well, yeah. That's always been the case. That's why DOJ calls HERO "The Gamer's Toolkit." It echoes what one of my old gamer acquaintances said, where he said HERO wasn't a game system, but a game toolkit for building your own system. If you want the guidelines in place already, that's going to turn you off. But the freedom you get also allows you to houserule that stuff, and to give more reasonable guidelines for it than in any edition of D&D.

Like I said, there is a guideline for absolutes in FH, largely because that's the kind of setting that lends itself to absolutes. Dark Champions, not so much. Galactic Champions, quite likely. But it's not something that should be a universal/core element, IMO.

jg

[Vulcan]

Someone proposed (fairly recently, if I remember correctly) breaking HEROS up into a set of 'system books' and the 'toolkit edition.'

There are some distinct advantages to doing it this way.

First, the system books would be pretty full games rules in their own right. The can have packages and power builds set up (a la the format from the USPD) and players only have to assemble the pieces they want to make a character. This gives an entry level rules set to set new players onto the HEROS path. And a page in the back to lead players to the Toolkit Edition when they are ready.

The down side is that there will be significant duplication of material between genre books. For example, the rules on Characteristics and the Skill descriptions would need to be reprinted in every book, along with the combat rules and the SPD chart. Unless there was a 'Basic Rulebook' that had the generic stuff like that - but then two book are needed to play 'system books'. Three if each system book comes with a 'opponent' book. Not necessarily a fatal problem, but one that needs to be thought out before writing begins.

The Toolkit Edition would be more like the Core 4E/5E books. All the rules, all the options, for the experienced players. <THUD>

Something like this has already been done in 5E - the Champion Sourcebook, the USPD, and Dark Champions all have shortcuts for building characters. (I don't have the other genre books so I don't know how far that has gone.) Expanding this could be the best way to handle 'simplifying' the rules to get new players involved without chasing off the current players like me, who enjoy the complexity of HEROS as-is.

[Hugh Neilson]

Okay, I'm thinking of, for instance, The Primal Order. An attack laced with primal energy always hits, unless the defender is using primal as well. Makes sense; it doesn't matter how high your DCV is, a god is going to paste you. As it stands in HERO, you can't build the guy who can't be hit, or the guy who can hit him.

This allows either for some characters (Primals) to be omnipotent, making other characters superfluous. So we get a few possible games.

If some significant characters have this ability; others don't, those with Primal pretty much win all the time, rendering other PC's useless. Gee, sounds like a great game?

If all significant characters are Primal, then we simply get a situation where those without Primal abilities are reduced to scenery. That's OK - it just steps up the discrepancy between "normal" and "Primal". Normals aren't too good against 350 point Supers or 1,000 point Galactic Champions either. But then Primal is just an automatic for all characters.

Or there are very few characters with Primal. Those that have this omnipotence are less "character" and more "plot device". I could handle them just as easily by giving them OCV and DCV of Campaign Max + 15, damage of Campaign Max x 5 and defenses of Campaign Max x 5. Oh look, he's omnipotent. Or I could just handwave him - if he wants you dead, you're dead - rather than building these primal forces of the universe with stats that munchkin players now want to emulate and defeat (a la D&D's initial forays to statting out mythological deities).

Why is this one the line beyond which we can't cross?

Okay. So we can look at it, and analyze it a bit. Instead of just saying "No, a thousand times no, never," we can maybe come up with something. Between The Primal Order and this, we can look at something like stepped power levels. A "normal" immunity doesn't protect against "cosmic" effects, a "cosmic" immunity doesn't protect against "universal" effects, a "universal" immunity doesn't protect against "primal" effects.

None of them are really absolute then, are they? It seems to me that this structure could be built with tiers such as the following (Cosmic vs Normal; numbers grabbed out of the air):

- the maximum OCV and DCV of a Normal, including all maneuvers, is 10. Cosmic characters have a minimum 18 OCV and 18 DCV. This means any Cosmic needs 19- (or more) to hit any Normal, and the Normal needs 3- (or less) to hit Cosmic. This is handwaved as cannot miss and cannot hit, respectively. [Alternatively, we require Cosmics to buy extra OCV and DCV that "only applies vs normals" to hit the 18/18 mark versus normals only - this prevents inflation for cosmic vs cosmic.]

- Cosmic powers are AVLD powers that do BOD with the defense being "Cosmic Defenses". Cosmic Defenses are SFX of being a cosmic character. [Alternatively, all Normals have the 0 point limitation "not vs cosmic attacks" on all their defenses.]

- it makes no difference whether normal attacks can hurt a cosmic character since they can't hit, but it's easy enough to impose a DC max on Normals and require Cosmics to buy extra defenses at a level sufficient that we now handwave Invulnerability. If Normals can't have more than 10 DC's, Cosmics need total defenses of, say, 95 and 19 resistant.[Maybe these defenses are a combination of unlimited defenses plus "only vs normal attacks" to reach the expected level.]

If the game expects Cosmic to be rare and expensive, we use the first approach, which places the cost burden on the Cosmic character. If we expect everyone of significance to be Cosmic, we use the alternate approach - normals are insignificant gnats, so "only vs normals" becomes a large limitation.

In that latter case, "Universal" pays a high cost since they get great power over most characters, who are 'only' Cosmic.

Okay, I obviously overlooked that whole piece.

Does it work towards resolving your concern, or is something else still needed in your toolkit?

You have to do something when the irresistible force meets the immovable object. That points up a hole in the current rules; what happens when you have this situation? The GM call is to not allow this combination in the first place; if you're allowing an irresistible force don't allow an immovable object, or vice versa.

So the GM must decide which of two equally valid conceptions gets to play in his game, and tell the other "Sorry, you can't have your absolute". Once we have the prospect of conflicting absolutes, they are no longer absolute.

There again, "stepped" absolutes can come into play -- and that's a piece we've never had.

We already have stepped absolutes - buy enough OCV, DCV, DC (standard effect) and Defenses that you can automatically hit, be missed, kill and ignore people at or below the step you're looking for. Apply the FH Absolutes rule to OCV and DCV so anyone who needs 2- by formula to hit, or where you hit on 19+, is an automatic result.

Anyone who has enough OCV that they can hit you on a 3- is at the "next step" and can conceivably hit you. If they have enough defenses to resist your standard effect, or enough DC's to get through your defenses, they are also at the next level. This is no change from the current structure.

Something for a genre book or the Ultimate Toolkitting Book, I would suggest, rather than the core rules.

I like the idea of this going into "enhanced Hero", but I can see some case that there are enough genres where absolutes are seen that the option should exist (perhaps in very much reduced form and fleshed out in a supplement) in the core rules.

[Markdoc]

All right. I can live with that. Just so long as it's explicit even beyond 'stop sign' powers. Having it in a separate section seems like a workable compromise to me.

Whereas to me, the fact that we agree that it needs to be segregated out into a sealed section stamped "Do not use unless absolutely necessary" is a sign that we're moving away from what should be in the core rules and into houserule territory.

There are *always* going to be concepts which don't fit neatly into the existing rules and if we add extra rules trying to cover all of these, we end up with a bloated flabsack of a rulebook filled with gotchas and rules which don't play well with others.

Flexibility is good, I agree, but so is coherence. I'd actually like 6E to be a recognizable (and preferably slightly streamlined) flexible ruleset, not a set of tools out of which you can build your own game - which ends up totally incompatible with other games ostensibly built from the same rules set.

To me, this whole toolkit approach is getting out of hand - Hero system was supposed to be a set of roleplaying rules, not a set of guidelines for designing roleplaying rules and seems like we are losing sight of that.

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

I agree with you, Markdoc, but I'm willing to allow Chris to have his rules. So long as I'm not forced to deal with them that's okay.

[Markdoc]

I agree with you, Markdoc, but I'm willing to allow Chris to have his rules. So long as I'm not forced to deal with them that's okay.

Yeah, but IMO the core rules should, by and large be just that. Core. My experience has been that when a new rule is added to the core rulebook - even when it is optional - it pretty soon becomes widespread and then becomes the standard. Even genre books have this effect, though somewhat weaker. And the current increase in size from 4E to 5E came about in part form a desire to cover increasingly small sections of the game. Enough, already. Do we really want 6E to weight in at 1200 pages, much of it optional material?

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Absolutes.

I'm with those who would rather see something like the Absolute Effect Rule put in as a guideline in the main rulebook. Absolutes should be scaled to the power level of the game at hand, and should definitely have a Stop Sign (or Do Not Enter Sign) attached.

Speaking of being scaled to the power level of the campaign, perhaps the same should be done with at least some of the existing "absolute effect" powers, especially Desolidification.

[The Main Man]

A "Do Not Enter" sign would be humorous but actually useful for "Absolute Effect."

One way to make the book look streamlined is to use thinner paper at the expense of bulletproof quality. ;)

I also favor a streamlined, simplified version of the game that remains as flexible as ever.

[Chris Goodwin]

A "Do Not Enter" sign would be humorous but actually useful for "Absolute Effect."

"Do Not Enter" was Bob Greenwade's suggestion for a new icon, meant to represent "Don't use this unless you Know What You're Doing!" It would work well for the Absolute Effects section.

[The Main Man]

Oh.

It may also work better if all such rules are placed in a "GM's only" section to signify that it is entirely up to the GM*.




*Granted the entire game is technically under the GM's jurisdiction but let's not quibble here.

[PhilFleischmann]

My suggestion: More Icons!

So far, we only use two: the Stop Sign and the Magnifying Glass/Caution Sign. These are OK, but they don't convey enough information. It would be nice to add a few more to indicate specifically what the issues are with particular constructs and why. Here's a few ideas for icons we could use:

Stop Sign - A construct that could ruin the GM's plot, like Telepathy or Clairsentience ruining a mystery plot.
Magnifying Glass - Look at this power carefully for abuse.
Skull - This construct will make combat more dangerous/deadly
Book - This construct allows for greater realism/granularity at the cost of greater bookkeeping.
Shield - This construct could make a character too well-protected for the adventure to pose any real risk.
Magic Wand - This construct doesn't really make sense in realistic terms. It may work for a game that incorporates fantastic elements, but it doesn't stand up to much logical scrutiny. Consider not using it in games that are meant to be particularly realistic.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Are there any others that would be useful? Just looking for any ideas for now, we can always pare them down to a reasonable number later.

Do Not Enter Sign - This construct can seriously throw a game out of balance, and exists only for special cases that generally should be restricted to the GM.

On the specific issue of Absolute Rules, how 'bout:

Judge's Gavel - This rule is entirely in the purview of the GM. Don't whine if he doesn't let you use it. It wasn't likely that he would.

And while we're on the subject of these icons, it should be mentioned that they should be applied to all sections of the rulebook, not just the Character Creation section. These issues come up in regards to things other than just Powers, Skills, Perks, and Talents.

[SteveZilla]

The problem I see with allowing Absolute Effects like "I'm Unhittable" by buying up DCV is... AoE attacks. They kinda make your "Absolute DCV" irrelevant. So either as a GM I have to handwave AoE/Explosion powers (including things like Change Environment & Darkness) to not affect him, or outright not allow them.

[Vulcan]

That kinda thing is why HEROS doesn't need absolutes, in my opinion. But if something along those lines can be done in a reasonable number of pages, well, let those who want it have the tool.

I don't want it. But I don't want to argue about it for a hundred pages either.

[The Main Man]

Perhaps an "Absolute Effect" DCV needs UBO for the surrounding hex...

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem I see with allowing Absolute Effects like "I'm Unhittable" by buying up DCV is... AoE attacks. They kinda make your "Absolute DCV" irrelevant. So either as a GM I have to handwave AoE/Explosion powers (including things like Change Environment & Darkness) to not affect him, or outright not allow them.

This seems to be a confusion of absolutes, and would require a careful review of the character's SFX. "He's unhittable" and "He's unhurtable" are two entirely different things.

The Speedster whose reflexes are so fast he can get out of the way of any attack is not going to avoid damage if he's standing at ground zero of a nuclear explosion. He can't dodge that damage - it's all around him. Area Effect attacks would then hit. He's unhittable, not unhurtable.

Of course, now we need an Absolute that permits him to Dive for Cover to get out of the area of wide scale attacks if his movement is sufficient to allow him to escape.

[Hugh Neilson]

Thinking further on the guy who's immune to swords, we could make this a lot more manageable by using the automaton rules. [Noting that I favour a structure where ALL abilities have a purchase price, not "only NPC's may have this beneficial ability".]

The character would purchase No Hit Locations, enough Armor to bring his defenses to the selected maximum (24 rPD for our Swords character) and enough nonresistant defenses to get to the maximum STUN (which is 72 with No Hit Locations =- 24 BOD x 3). This would be limited appropriately (only swords; only real weapons; what have you).

So that Fantasy character with 6 PD who is to be immune to swords (let's call that -2 - there are lots of other physical attacks) pays for No Hit Locations, Swords Only (is that 10 points? Say 10/3 = 3), +24 PD Armor, Swords Only (36/3 = 12) and +42 PD, Swords Only (6 + 24 + 42 = 72; 42/3 = 14). For 29 points, he is invulnerable to swords.

This is a contract between player and GM. If a later Master Swordsman has a magic sword that does 6d6 KA when all his skill levels add in, it was agreed that 29 points made that character immune to swords, so he is still immune to this higher than game expectation sword.

Now, if Master Swordsman purchased an Absolute decapitation, we have a problem - both abilities were agreed to be absolutes, and only one can be. But that's why I'm not a big fan of absolutes.

[Markdoc]

Of course, now we need an Absolute that permits him to Dive for Cover to get out of the area of wide scale attacks if his movement is sufficient to allow him to escape.

And also an absolute that allows the area of effect to increase to avoid dive for cover on attacks that always hit! :D

At that point it's probably just simpler to play D&D 4E ... oh no, wait, they gave up absolute effects because they were such a pain! D&D 3.5 then :P

cheers, Mark

[nexus]

The only game I regularly play that makes heavy use of "Absolute" effect is Exalted. They're one of the major derails on the system, FWIW. On the other hand, Hero is a toolkit and Absolute effects do exists in many genres so I think some method to implement should exist but perhaps not in the core rules.

[Markdoc]

The only game I regularly play that makes heavy use of "Absolute" effect is Exalted. They're one of the major derails on the system, FWIW. On the other hand, Hero is a toolkit and Absolute effects do exists in many genres so I think some method to implement should exist but perhaps not in the core rules.

Really? Why would we want to implement something that in most game systems has proven to be a really terrible idea? (or derail, as you put it).

As you can obviously tell the argument "Hero's a toolkit so we should have rules to enable us to do things that are really bad ideas!" isn't gaining much traction with me. Not every toolkit needs to include a chainsaw with an extra blade in place of a handle, just so that it's "complete". :D

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

Really? Why would we want to implement something that in most game systems has proven to be a really terrible idea? (or derail, as you put it).

As you can obviously tell the argument "Hero's a toolkit so we should have rules to enable us to do things that are really bad ideas!" isn't gaining much traction with me. Not every toolkit needs to include a chainsaw with an extra blade in place of a handle, just so that it's "complete". :D

A. That's the direction HERO has been moving in with 5er, and

B. If you're the GM, and something's a really bad idea, you don't have to let your players do it.

Are you saying that absolutes in Hero, or in any game, are Bad Wrong Fun? That no game should have them?

[nexus]

Really? Why would we want to implement something that in most game systems has proven to be a really terrible idea? (or derail, as you put it).


I didn't say most games I said Exalted. Exalted's biggest mistakes is it balances the entire combat system around Absolute Defenses so made them common and easy to acquire. It still "works" but combat becomes pretty boring after a point because it's basically hurling absolute attacks against absolute defense until one side runs out of power. Exalted is an object lesson in how to handle Absolute Effects the wrong way, not that that should be avoided entirely.

Absolute Effects or some way to simulate them would be required to recreate some genres/settings and can be used in games successfully. Because Exalted didn't handle them well doesn't mean they can't be handled well. They should not be in the core rules but an Option for GMs to include if they desire. Absolute effects have to handled carefully but they can be done. If the game system is going to argue it's "universal" then the issue of absolutes should be addressed in some manner aside from "No."

Fifth Edition includes some things in supplements that would be unbalancing in many games like the Speed Zone. If it's not going to work in a particular game, it's he GM's job to deny it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I agree that HERO is as much a toolkit as a complete game. However, should it be a toolkit from which you can make every conceivable game or one from which you can make balanced games in almost any genre?

I happen to think the second. The toolkit should be an aid to the GM, not a can of nightmare worms.

- Klaus

[nexus]

Can Absolute Effects be handled in game term? Yes, I think so.

Should they be addressed by Hero System? I think they occur enough in the types of source material Hero simulates that not addressing them would be a notable hole in a system claiming to be universal. Doesn't GURPS address them in some form?

Should they be in the core rules? I'd say no. They are not crucial to a wide enough group of genres and settings to be there, would require some lengthy explanation and perhaps new rules that would complicate the learning curve for a new player. Also as someone stated earlier, rules in the core, even if listed as optional carry more "weight" than rules offered in supplements; that shouldn't be discounted. Put them in a supplement.

Can Absolute Effect unbalance a game? Yes, that's why they should be optional with advice for the GM. But Hero includes allot of things that can unbalance a game. It doesn't hold the players hand or tell them what they can't use in their own games in that regard. It's up to individual GMs to decide which tools to when building their game.

[nexus]

I agree that HERO is as much a toolkit as a complete game. However, should it be a toolkit from which you can make every conceivable game or one from which you can make balanced games in almost any genre?

I happen to think the second. The toolkit should be an aid to the GM, not a can of nightmare worms.

- Klaus

What's balanced in one genre/setting can be horribly broken in another. Hero System should, IMO, endeavor to tell GMs and Players "No!, because we think your setting should work like this." as little as possible. Thats the main reason I used Hero in preference to GURPS. A warning that a particular option should be examined closely before use should be a enough without the system holding your hand.

[Chris Goodwin]

I agree that HERO is as much a toolkit as a complete game. However, should it be a toolkit from which you can make every conceivable game or one from which you can make balanced games in almost any genre?

I happen to think the second. The toolkit should be an aid to the GM, not a can of nightmare worms.

Asking for absolute effects isn't a big stretch. D&D versions have Magic Missile, which absolutely always hits. Superheroic media has characters who are absolutely invulnerable; pre-Crisis Superman is pretty much invulnerable to everything, with a hole for magic (which is a hole rather than "not invulnerable enough), while Juggernaut is (or was, back when I was following comics) invulnerable to pretty much all damage (though he can be slowed down, he can't be stopped).

It's not that I'm only looking to handle "absolute" level games, though that's part of it; I'm looking for ways to handle absolutes in all games where they are appropriate in genre or source.

What's balanced in one genre/setting can be horribly broken in another. Hero System should, IMO, endeavor to tell GMs and Players "No!, because we think your setting should work like this." as little as possible. Thats the main reason I used Hero in preference to GURPS. A warning that a particular option should be examined closely before use should be a enough without the system holding your hand.

This.

[Chris Goodwin]

Can Absolute Effects be handled in game term? Yes, I think so.

Should they be addressed by Hero System? I think they occur enough in the types of source material Hero simulates that not addressing them would be a notable hole in a system claiming to be universal. Doesn't GURPS address them in some form?

Should they be in the core rules? I'd say no. They are not crucial to a wide enough group of genres and settings to be there, would require some lengthy explanation and perhaps new rules that would complicate the learning curve for a new player. Also as someone stated earlier, rules in the core, even if listed as optional carry more "weight" than rules offered in supplements; that shouldn't be discounted. Put them in a supplement.

I would only say, if it has a chance of appearing across more than one genre, it should appear in the core rules. Otherwise you're reprinting what should be core rules in multiple books (cf. the size Disadvantages).

[Vulcan]

This seems to be a confusion of absolutes, and would require a careful review of the character's SFX. "He's unhittable" and "He's unhurtable" are two entirely different things.

The Speedster whose reflexes are so fast he can get out of the way of any attack is not going to avoid damage if he's standing at ground zero of a nuclear explosion. He can't dodge that damage - it's all around him. Area Effect attacks would then hit. He's unhittable, not unhurtable.

Of course, now we need an Absolute that permits him to Dive for Cover to get out of the area of wide scale attacks if his movement is sufficient to allow him to escape.

That already exists in the rules (although I don't allow it). It's called Flying Dodge.

[Vulcan]

I would only say, if it has a chance of appearing across more than one genre, it should appear in the core rules. Otherwise you're reprinting what should be core rules in multiple books (cf. the size Disadvantages).

I don't know, I think that there would be enough material for an 'Absolute HERO' sourcebook - or DIGITAL HERO issue, if that ever gets restarted. Besides, Nexus makes a good point about stuff in the core book being more official than stuff in supplements. And if there's one think I don't want to be really official, it would be absolute rules for HEROS.

[SteveZilla]

That already exists in the rules (although I don't allow it). It's called Flying Dodge.


Hmm. You could build an "Absolute Dodge" ability with a Highly Expensive Trigger (Activation takes no time, IIRC, and Resets Automatically) on EDM (The Dodgey Dimension), Limited with "Instant" and "Reappears On The Next DEX Count". This could "blink" the character out of the way of regular and AoE attacks. The only problem is Constant/Continuous AoE attacks -- which I see no way to avoid (pun intended).

[James Gillen]

Can Absolute Effects be handled in game term? Yes, I think so.

Should they be addressed by Hero System? I think they occur enough in the types of source material Hero simulates that not addressing them would be a notable hole in a system claiming to be universal. Doesn't GURPS address them in some form?

Should they be in the core rules? I'd say no. They are not crucial to a wide enough group of genres and settings to be there, would require some lengthy explanation and perhaps new rules that would complicate the learning curve for a new player. Also as someone stated earlier, rules in the core, even if listed as optional carry more "weight" than rules offered in supplements; that shouldn't be discounted. Put them in a supplement.

Can Absolute Effect unbalance a game? Yes, that's why they should be optional with advice for the GM. But Hero includes allot of things that can unbalance a game. It doesn't hold the players hand or tell them what they can't use in their own games in that regard. It's up to individual GMs to decide which tools to when building their game.

I approve this message.

JG

[Markdoc]

A. That's the direction HERO has been moving in with 5er, and

B. If you're the GM, and something's a really bad idea, you don't have to let your players do it.

Are you saying that absolutes in Hero, or in any game, are Bad Wrong Fun? That no game should have them?

No. I'm saying that they are difficult to integrate into almost any setting and putting them in them in the core rules is a mistake.

I have no fear of houserules and since absolutes - by definition - don't operate by scalable, priceable mechanisms, they are easy for a GM to simply handwave. That's what they are, essentially - a handwave ruling that "the regular rules do not apply in this case". Price? That applies to pricing too. In a 1000 point Galactic Champions game (where absolutes might even be appropriate) setting invulnerability at 100 points would likely be cheaper than buying defences. In a gritty Dark Champions games, 100 points would be expensive. Since absolutes step outside the game rules, pricing is going to be arbitrary anyway.

Pricing is always a poor regulator of availability anyway: set invulnerability at 100 points and green power ring guy buys it as OIF, Ring, one charge lasts 5 minutes for 50 points. Now for the price of what many bricks spend on defences (or less) he's invulnerable. Balance is always going to be an issue.

As a rule of thumb, if your response to a rule is "The GM can always say no" and the reality is "The GM will almost always say no" then that's a glaring stopsign to the would-be game designer that maybe adding that rule is a bad idea.

That's not the same as saying it's a bad idea to add in some games, - merely that it's a bad idea to to add it to the core rules that shape our consensus gaming experience.

To answer your question directly: is it bad wrong fun to use absolutes in your game? Of course not. But to add rules that you admit from the outset introduce difficult GM'ing questions and balance issues is definately bad wrong game design. Particularly when the reason appears to be "Because we can".

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Asking for absolute effects isn't a big stretch. D&D versions have Magic Missile, which absolutely always hits.

It used to. But absolute effects turned out to be such a pain to GM that D&D has now abandoned them. Magic missile now requires an attack roll against Reflex.

Superheroic media has characters who are absolutely invulnerable; pre-Crisis Superman is pretty much invulnerable to everything, with a hole for magic (which is a hole rather than "not invulnerable enough), while Juggernaut is (or was, back when I was following comics) invulnerable to pretty much all damage (though he can be slowed down, he can't be stopped).

Heh. I'm reading my way through the collected X-men right now, and the Juggernaut as it turns out, although he "cannot be stopped" is... often stopped. Pre-crisis superman, though he "could not be hurt" was ... often hurt. In the source material, absolutes are rarely, if ever absolutes. That's understandable enough: they are hard to work around. It's truer to the source material to simulate those powers with very high defences, IMO.

It's not that I'm only looking to handle "absolute" level games, though that's part of it; I'm looking for ways to handle absolutes in all games where they are appropriate in genre or source.

And that's fine: since absolutes stand outside game mechanics anyway, why now simply houserule it?

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Heh. I'm reading my way through the collected X-men right now, and the Juggernaut as it turns out, although he "cannot be stopped" is... often stopped. Pre-crisis superman, though he "could not be hurt" was ... often hurt. In the source material, absolutes are rarely, if ever absolutes. That's understandable enough: they ar