General Rules Issues

[AnotherSkip]

don't forget the two talents and one skill (iirc) that can target combatants.

yes there needs to be some limits but here is the real doozy, buy a VPP based on senses, now then How many freaking bazillion targeting senses can you build? and trying to get the right darkness to counter that sense grouping ? nigh impossible. good luck on that one. I think all sense altering powers should be completely realigned and made to function together sensably.

[Vulcan]

Not to mention getting a GM to allow such a cheesy build.

Sure, you can do a lot of rude, broken, or just plain cheesy things in HEROS. If you take them all out, then there really isn't much left. Besides, what is ubercheese by one game's standards is Standard Operating Procedure in another. That's why the GM has final say in such matters.

[AnotherSkip]

A free for all on equipment in a Supers game would completely damage the genre. I have right now a supercyborg with say 50 points spent in gear. Do you have ANY idea how far he would go if I gave him all that gear for free? PLUS all the crazy shut he would do?

Nope point at least helps balance things with the other players.

[The Main Man]

Honestly I think there is some value in writing the rules based only on the heroic sub set, then in a book* dedicated to Super Heroes include the Superheroic rules

* I personaly want to see a book, not champions, that explores the super genre in depth like Fantasy Hero or Dark Champions did, while leaving Champions to the setting book type of thing

Personally, I think that it should be called "Super HERO." :)

You may have a point in that the core book is geared towards that middle level of power whereas the supers genre book explores how to specifically fine-tune it to higher levels.

I also think that a "Book of Equipment" should be one of the first releases for convenience.

Basically you take the Equipment Guide 5e and convert it to 6e.

[The Main Man]

A free for all on equipment in a Supers game would completely damage the genre. I have right now a supercyborg with say 50 points spent in gear. Do you have ANY idea how far he would go if I gave him all that gear for free? PLUS all the crazy shut he would do?

Nope point at least helps balance things with the other players.

Agreed, but who brought it up?

[AnotherSkip]

I got to thinking of something else that should be addressed.

6e should not inherently differentiate between "Normal," "Heroic," and "Superheroic" campaigns and should be able to smoothly scale in either direction.

Hunh. i guess you did in my own imaginary world wherein I felt that "the three that are one" would rub out the equipment rules pay or not differential.

[BobGreenwade]

Personally, I think that it should be called "Super HERO." :)While that has appeal, unfortunately that phrase is Trademarked, held jointly by DC and Marvel.

[BobGreenwade]

The point was just made in another thread that there's no way to get +2 points under the Standard Effect Rule, as written. You can take a full die, which gives +3 points, or a half die (or simple +1), which gives +1 point.

If a half die gives +2 points, that is a very simple fix that doesn't require any other changes to make work.

[Balabanto]

For one thing, if you buy "Self Only", the Darkness will only affect you; i.e., you can't use the darkened senses to attack others, but other can use them to attack you. You can, however, use the listed option to make the Darkness field follow you. This still prevents you from using any of the darkened senses for your own attacks unless you buy Personal Immunity (+1/4). It is now, however, very obvious where you are (in that hex of impenetrable darkness), so attackers can switch to area attacks (or throw cars at you). To prevent this, you need Invisible Power Effects (+1 for all senses; x2 because the effect of the Power is also invisible). That's a total of +2.25, or 32.5 for each targeting sense group and 16.25 for each non-targeting sense group. Not such a good deal anymore, is it?

- Klaus

Yes, it still is, because personal immunity is all you need. The +1 advantage of AOE more than counters that out. Unless people regularly throw around other people's property, which is a fine strategy, this is still massively broken. Who cares if they can still see you. The point is that Darkness is not meant to be a defensive power, nor is it meant to be significantly more effective than the 140+ points of shapeshift that you need to purchase to be an ordinary kitten.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Yes, it still is, because personal immunity is all you need. The +1 advantage of AOE more than counters that out. Unless people regularly throw around other people's property, which is a fine strategy, this is still massively broken. Who cares if they can still see you. The point is that Darkness is not meant to be a defensive power, nor is it meant to be significantly more effective than the 140+ points of shapeshift that you need to purchase to be an ordinary kitten.
If characters encounter an opponent that hides in a personal Darkness field, I think throwing around other people's property will be very common. :)

Also remember that 'invisible' characters can be attacked HTH at ½ OCV - you don't get immunity to being attacked. A character with Combat Sense can completely ignore your Drakness. A single, successful Grab is also enough to remove the advantages of being invisible. True invisibility has the advantage that if you don't know which hex the character is in, you can't even attempt to target him. You don't get that with Darkness.

About turning into a kitten: You should use Multiform if you want to really turn into a kitten. Shapeshift merely changes appearances. Shapeshifting into the resemblence of a kitten can be very useful for spying, even if you don't get a real kitten' special senses. Arguing that Shapeshift is broken because it can't easily do what another Power is meant to do is a bogus argument. That's sort of like saying that Flight is broken because it is very hard to get enough Flight to fly faster than light (since we have FTL Travel for that).

In a final note: Hero's flexibility means that you can make broken constructs. In the end, it is the GM's job to determine if a certain construct should be allowed. Personally, I would have no problem allowing your Darkness Defense, but another GM might say no.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

If characters encounter an opponent that hides in a personal Darkness field, I think throwing around other people's property will be very common. :)

Also remember that 'invisible' characters can be attacked HTH at ½ OCV - you don't get immunity to being attacked. A character with Combat Sense can completely ignore your Drakness. A single, successful Grab is also enough to remove the advantages of being invisible. True invisibility has the advantage that if you don't know which hex the character is in, you can't even attempt to target him. You don't get that with Darkness.

Very good points. I would add that Darkness as a defense is not really uncommon in the source material. Dr. Midnight typically fought within his Darkness field (to which he was immune). The Shroud used the same tactics (he was blind and relied on other enhanced senses). Whether I target Darkness around you or around me, it's just as tough for you to attack me.

About turning into a kitten: You should use Multiform if you want to really turn into a kitten. Shapeshift merely changes appearances. Shapeshifting into the resemblence of a kitten can be very useful for spying, even if you don't get a real kitten' special senses. Arguing that Shapeshift is broken because it can't easily do what another Power is meant to do is a bogus argument. That's sort of like saying that Flight is broken because it is very hard to get enough Flight to fly faster than light (since we have FTL Travel for that).

I do agree that Multiform is the power to become a kitten. That said, I think Shapeshift needs to be revisited - it is too expensive for its results.

In a final note: Hero's flexibility means that you can make broken constructs. In the end, it is the GM's job to determine if a certain construct should be allowed. Personally, I would have no problem allowing your Darkness Defense, but another GM might say no.

Absolutely - you cannot remove the potential for broken abilities without removing flexibility for valid abilities.

- Klaus[/QUOTE]

[Balabanto]

If characters encounter an opponent that hides in a personal Darkness field, I think throwing around other people's property will be very common. :)

Also remember that 'invisible' characters can be attacked HTH at ½ OCV - you don't get immunity to being attacked. A character with Combat Sense can completely ignore your Drakness. A single, successful Grab is also enough to remove the advantages of being invisible. True invisibility has the advantage that if you don't know which hex the character is in, you can't even attempt to target him. You don't get that with Darkness.

About turning into a kitten: You should use Multiform if you want to really turn into a kitten. Shapeshift merely changes appearances. Shapeshifting into the resemblence of a kitten can be very useful for spying, even if you don't get a real kitten' special senses. Arguing that Shapeshift is broken because it can't easily do what another Power is meant to do is a bogus argument. That's sort of like saying that Flight is broken because it is very hard to get enough Flight to fly faster than light (since we have FTL Travel for that).

In a final note: Hero's flexibility means that you can make broken constructs. In the end, it is the GM's job to determine if a certain construct should be allowed. Personally, I would have no problem allowing your Darkness Defense, but another GM might say no.

- Klaus

The problem is that the "Shape" is still that of a human. Spatial Awareness doesn't detect a kitten shape. This flies in the face of common sense in every logical way. And Multiform is even more broken than this.

Second, in order to attack at 1/2 OCV, you need to make a nontargeting perception roll. With all the darknesses up, you can't make the perception roll. It's impossible, the darknesses to nontargeting perception rolls negate your ability to use this trick. So your OCV vs. this person is zero, unless you buy combat sense, another ability which in 4th edition cost 3 points, but which in 5th costs an insane amount (15 points for a base INT roll).

[Hugh Neilson]

Second, in order to attack at 1/2 OCV, you need to make a nontargeting perception roll. With all the darknesses up, you can't make the perception roll. It's impossible, the darknesses to nontargeting perception rolls negate your ability to use this trick. So your OCV vs. this person is zero, unless you buy combat sense, another ability which in 4th edition cost 3 points, but which in 5th costs an insane amount (15 points for a base INT roll).

The target bought Darkness to every targeting and nontargeting sense!!?! Wouldn't a high DCV have been cheaper? And both negated by AoE's.

[AnotherSkip]

Villian with Darkness against the supers team last night, nope it isn't that good.
Darkness against normals? yeah easy win (Dr. Midnight proves this), against multible supers with a dizzying arrayof powers? not so good.

even at 0 OCV the supers occasionally hit. ( though his Defenses were incredibly high too plus the darkness)
and the guys were smart one placed a forcewall above the blinded villian (who then flew into it, during his retreat since he couldn't see).

[Klaus Mogensen]

The problem is that the "Shape" is still that of a human. Spatial Awareness doesn't detect a kitten shape. This flies in the face of common sense in every logical way.
Shapeshift that only affects sight is merely an illusion. To really change shape, you need to also buy vs. touch (+5 points). This does however give the oddity of allowing Shapeshift only vs. touch, meaning that you have changed shape, but nobdy can see it. For this reason I think that Shapeshift should be sight + touch as standard, with other senses added after that. Purely illusory shape shifting might be done better with Images.

Second, in order to attack at 1/2 OCV, you need to make a nontargeting perception roll. With all the darknesses up, you can't make the perception roll. It's impossible, the darknesses to nontargeting perception rolls negate your ability to use this trick.
Uh, wrong. The basic penalties are ½ OCV, ½ DCV for HTH and 0 OCV, ½ DCV for Ranged. Making a nontargeting perception roll reduces HTH penalties to -1 DCV, ½ OCV and Ranged penalties to full DCV, ½ OCV. (5e p. 283).

- Klaus

[SteveZilla]

Second, in order to attack at 1/2 OCV, you need to make a nontargeting perception roll. With all the darknesses up, you can't make the perception roll. It's impossible, the darknesses to nontargeting perception rolls negate your ability to use this trick.

That's not entirely accurate. See this Q/A (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59166) about Invisibility for why. IMO it's a game-balance issue, which is why it doesn't conform to the "common-sense" of Sense-Denial Powers (Invis/Darkness/Flash).

Also, from the FAQ:

If a character purchases Invisibility for all Sense Groups, does that mean it’s impossible for anyone to perceive him?

No. First, of course, there’s the issue of perceiving his fringe (if he has one). Second, and more importantly, since characters can’t purchase Invisibility to the Unusual Sense Group as a whole — to Senses like Danger Sense and Combat Sense that aren’t assigned to a particular Sense Group, in other words — it’s not possible to be “absolutely” Invisible. (It is possible, of course, to buy Invisibility to various Unusual Senses individually, such as Invisibility to Detect Magic or Invisibility to Danger Sense.)

[SCUBA Hero]

NEW REQUEST:

A simple way for a character to make two (or more) independent attacks per Phase. Without penalty, or using Duplication as per the Hydra in the Bestiary (which writeup is fine for it's special effect, but I'm looking for something different).

The superhero Fire and Ice can shoot a fire blast at one target while shooting an ice blast at another target, using a Half-Phase Attack action without any penalties.

Or a highly trained soldier, who can shoot two different people at the same time with two different guns. Or with the same gun.

And so on.

(This came from a concept for my recent UNTIL / VIPER game at Archon. I wanted a robot with the above ability, and posted on the boards asking for ideas. There are some kludges, but nothing simple. In the end I hand-waved it as the GM; but I'd like to see the same ability spelled out for a normal character.)

[BobGreenwade]

Shapeshift that only affects sight is merely an illusion. To really change shape, you need to also buy vs. touch (+5 points). This does however give the oddity of allowing Shapeshift only vs. touch, meaning that you have changed shape, but nobdy can see it. For this reason I think that Shapeshift should be sight + touch as standard, with other senses added after that. Purely illusory shape shifting might be done better with Images.Shape Shift versus Touch but not Sight would mean an alteration in texture, apparent temperature, or other tactile features that don't involve an outright change in shape. It would be more accurate to say that a true change of physical shape requires both Touch and Sight.

[SteveZilla]

Shape Shift versus Touch but not Sight would mean an alteration in texture, apparent temperature, or other tactile features that don't involve an outright change in shape. It would be more accurate to say that a true change of physical shape requires both Touch and Sight.

IMO this is where the Sense-based Shape Shift runs afowl. It may sound nice, neat, and logical to buy it for each sense group, but there is a problem.

Sight often can detect a change in the Touch Group, like size, shape, texture. Which raises the dichotomy of buying only a Tough Group Shape Shift and changing in such a way that were it a real change, it should produce a visible change as well (like becoming 10% bigger or becoming scale-covered).


Random Thought: Perhaps Zan has Shape Shift, and Jayna has Multiform? ;)

[nexus]

I always picture shapeshift vs Touch that doesn't include the sight group as producing an effect like Plastic man. The character assumes the proper shape but visually it's clear they are who they are. Plastic man takes the shape of a chair, you can still tell its Plastic Man (same coloration, costume, features maybe distorted in some fashion but he can't fool anyone unless he finds someone to impair or evade their sight based senses

[Vulcan]

NEW REQUEST:

A simple way for a character to make two (or more) independent attacks per Phase. Without penalty, or using Duplication as per the Hydra in the Bestiary (which writeup is fine for it's special effect, but I'm looking for something different).

The superhero Fire and Ice can shoot a fire blast at one target while shooting an ice blast at another target, using a Half-Phase Attack action without any penalties.

Or a highly trained soldier, who can shoot two different people at the same time with two different guns. Or with the same gun.

And so on.

(This came from a concept for my recent UNTIL / VIPER game at Archon. I wanted a robot with the above ability, and posted on the boards asking for ideas. There are some kludges, but nothing simple. In the end I hand-waved it as the GM; but I'd like to see the same ability spelled out for a normal character.)

Check the rules on Multi-Power attacks.

Possible alternatives include Sweeps, Autofire, Triggered secondary attacks, and 'buy one twice as powerful and apply Reduced Penetration'.

[Balabanto]

Some things, you just shouldn't be able to get in Champions. MPAs are BROKEN. Because if the heroes can use MPAs, the VILLAINS can use MPAs, and you really do not want a character like Doctor Destroyer using MPAs with his two MPs and his gadget pool at once. Kiss your PC's goodbye. I hate the MPA rules. I wish they'd get rid of them completely.

[Hugh Neilson]

NEW REQUEST:

A simple way for a character to make two (or more) independent attacks per Phase. Without penalty, or using Duplication as per the Hydra in the Bestiary (which writeup is fine for it's special effect, but I'm looking for something different).

The superhero Fire and Ice can shoot a fire blast at one target while shooting an ice blast at another target, using a Half-Phase Attack action without any penalties.

Or a highly trained soldier, who can shoot two different people at the same time with two different guns. Or with the same gun.

And so on.

(This came from a concept for my recent UNTIL / VIPER game at Archon. I wanted a robot with the above ability, and posted on the boards asking for ideas. There are some kludges, but nothing simple. In the end I hand-waved it as the GM; but I'd like to see the same ability spelled out for a normal character.)

Check the rules on Multi-Power attacks.

Possible alternatives include Sweeps, Autofire, Triggered secondary attacks, and 'buy one twice as powerful and apply Reduced Penetration'.

But none of this provide the ability to fire a Flame Bolt (or pistol) at one target and an Ice Burst (or swing a cutlass) at another.

I believe I've noted before that I would like to see Sweep, Rapid Fire and Multiple Power Attack brought in under one umbrella, likely with Multiple Move By becoming an example of such a "Multiple Attack Maneuver".

These should have some base level of penalty (perhaps any attack including multiple components takes a full phase; perhaps a penalty applies for each attack beyond the first and/or for each added target, etc.). The ability to buy off these penalties, either reducing or eliminating them, should be included in the system.

And it should be possible to fire your pistol at one target, swing your cutlass at a second, and attempt your Hypnotic Mind Control on a third, with the possibility of any combination of the three succeeding or failing.

[Netzilla]

Check the rules on Multi-Power attacks.

Possible alternatives include Sweeps, Autofire, Triggered secondary attacks, and 'buy one twice as powerful and apply Reduced Penetration'.

The problem comes when you try to combine two attacks of different types: HtH & Ranged (kicking one bad guy while shooting his partner across the room), Ranged and Mental (using your TK to grab someone while simultaneously trying to read their mind) and so forth.

That's why a few of us have proposed combining Sweep, Rapid Fire & Multiple Power Attacks all under one rule:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1645371#post1645371

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1666598&postcount=816

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1668554&postcount=723

[Vulcan]

Some things, you just shouldn't be able to get in Champions. MPAs are BROKEN. Because if the heroes can use MPAs, the VILLAINS can use MPAs, and you really do not want a character like Doctor Destroyer using MPAs with his two MPs and his gadget pool at once. Kiss your PC's goodbye. I hate the MPA rules. I wish they'd get rid of them completely.

There is that, of course. I also dislike MPA's and our group (wisely, in my opinion) agreed that they were a bad idea and don't use them either.

But by the rules, they are there.

I think for 6E either they should be removed, or brought into line with the Sweep rules (1/2 DCV, -2 OCV per target after the first) becuase Balabanto is right, MPA's are broken right now.

[Vulcan]

But none of this provide the ability to fire a Flame Bolt (or pistol) at one target and an Ice Burst (or swing a cutlass) at another.

I believe I've noted before that I would like to see Sweep, Rapid Fire and Multiple Power Attack brought in under one umbrella, likely with Multiple Move By becoming an example of such a "Multiple Attack Maneuver".

These should have some base level of penalty (perhaps any attack including multiple components takes a full phase; perhaps a penalty applies for each attack beyond the first and/or for each added target, etc.). The ability to buy off these penalties, either reducing or eliminating them, should be included in the system.

And it should be possible to fire your pistol at one target, swing your cutlass at a second, and attempt your Hypnotic Mind Control on a third, with the possibility of any combination of the three succeeding or failing.

Took a closer look at MPA and Sweep/Rapid Fire rules. It is indeed curious that one can use one attack power to attack multiple targets, but not multiple attack powers.

This is indeed an oversight that probably should be corrected in 6E!

[Chris Goodwin]

Some things, you just shouldn't be able to get in Champions. MPAs are BROKEN. Because if the heroes can use MPAs, the VILLAINS can use MPAs, and you really do not want a character like Doctor Destroyer using MPAs with his two MPs and his gadget pool at once. Kiss your PC's goodbye. I hate the MPA rules. I wish they'd get rid of them completely.

(a) The Original Hero Guys were on record as stating that MPAs are the way they'd played, and that the fact they were absent from the first four editions was an oversight they'd assumed were rectified at some point.

(b) Linked doesn't work without the MPA rules. Linked assumes you can use MPA. Breaking that brings us back to the days of the Great Linked Debate, and no one wants that.

[Klaus Mogensen]

(b) Linked doesn't work without the MPA rules. Linked assumes you can use MPA.
Linked works fine without MPA. The way my group played it was that you could use linked to make a 'mixed' attack, e.g. EB with a little Flash, and the total Active Cost of the combination counted towards the limit. We saw it as a limitation with a built-in advantage, much lige Charges, which has 0 END Cost built in.

Breaking that brings us back to the days of the Great Linked Debate, and no one wants that.
On the other hand, now would be the time to take that discussion. I fear that with the general point inflation that Hero has seen (and might continue to see), MPAs can become broken (or even more broken than now, depending on you view).

- Klaus

[Chris Goodwin]

Linked works fine without MPA. The way my group played it was that you could use linked to make a 'mixed' attack, e.g. EB with a little Flash, and the total Active Cost of the combination counted towards the limit. We saw it as a limitation with a built-in advantage, much lige Charges, which has 0 END Cost built in.

If you can't combine attacks normally, how does adding a Limitation allow you to do so?

[Balabanto]

I would rather have a "Great Linked Debate" where the GM has personal control over how it runs than characters in a 60 AP game being able to buy an elemental control and MPA a 360 point attack.

So the answer is, yes! Get rid of it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If you can't combine attacks normally, how does adding a Limitation allow you to do so?
As I wrote. we saw that as a built-in advantage to the limitation. Sort of like Always On in 3e, which IIRC was the only way to make an END-using power persistent. Anyway, it worked quite well.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Maybe there needs to be an advantaged form of Linked?

time to really fix the problems is now.

Anyways can't you have multible martial art attacks used in a single round? sounds like a basis for gun fu & power fu. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

I would rather have a "Great Linked Debate" where the GM has personal control over how it runs than characters in a 60 AP game being able to buy an elemental control and MPA a 360 point attack.

So the answer is, yes! Get rid of it.

Although it is a rule I disagree with, the rules have always prohibited MPA with two or more powers in the same EC. In 5er, this was extended to two or more powers in any single framework.

To me, the character who has 6 attack powers in an EC has paid 210 points, when he could have paid 90 to have the same 6 attack powers available one at a time in a Multipower. That extra 120 point cost should carry some benefits. At present, it carries only the drawback that the attacks are now all drained together. A character with the same six powers in a MP with flexible slots, costing 120 instead of 90 points, should have the ability to MPA as well - that is, mix & match within the slots. Otherwise, what benefit did that 30 points extra (1/3 more cost) generate?

I think the rules should try to set out how the game works by default, not set out a bunch of choices for the GM to choose from. House rules are fine, but there should be a default system.

If MPA's do not exist, Linked should not permit an MPA. Under the present system, Linked reduces options (appropriate for a limitation) rather than granting an option that cannot be obtained otherwise.

Should be MPA rules be modified to bring them more in line with Sweep and Rapid Attack? I think that all of these maneuvers, which allow characters to effectively make more than one attack as a single action, should be rationalized. Whether that means more penalties for MPA's, or less penalties for Sweep and Rapid Attack, they should be consistent. The rules for hitting the same opponent three times with my Energy Blast should not be substantially different from the rules for hitting him once with my EB, once with my KA and again with my NND.

[Hugh Neilson]

As I wrote. we saw that as a built-in advantage to the limitation. Sort of like Always On in 3e, which IIRC was the only way to make an END-using power persistent.

A discrepancy which has since been corrected, of course. Why should we have similar discrepancies? Whenever a limitation and an advantage are bundled together, it makes the limitation more limiting for abilities that don't benefit from that advantage (for example, placing Charges on a power that is already 0 END, or Damage Shield on a power that had no range to begin with, or, if we remove MPA's, Linked applied to powers that could already be used together - like Shrinking and Energy Blast).

6e should pursue the unbundling of such advantages and limitations - especially if it is going to pursue unbundling of figured characteristics, and even if figured characteristics are ultimately retained.

[Chris Goodwin]

I would rather have a "Great Linked Debate" where the GM has personal control over how it runs than characters in a 60 AP game being able to buy an elemental control and MPA a 360 point attack.

So the answer is, yes! Get rid of it.

If you don't like MPAs in your game, they're easy to get rid of. The word "no" is a very useful tool.

[SteveZilla]

To me, the character who has 6 attack powers in an EC has paid 210 points, when he could have paid 90 to have the same 6 attack powers available one at a time in a Multipower. That extra 120 point cost should carry some benefits. At present, it carries only the drawback that the attacks are now all drained together.

Except that it is possible to use all 6 attack powers in the 210 pt EC, and even on the same target -- just not in a single MPA. If, for example, the EC contained 6 various Continuous/Constant attack powers, they could attack with the first one on their first Phase, then while maintaining that power attack with the second power on the same target, and so on with all 6 powers. That's generally not so with most Multipower builds.

A character with the same six powers in a MP with flexible slots, costing 120 instead of 90 points, should have the ability to MPA as well - that is, mix & match within the slots. Otherwise, what benefit did that 30 points extra (1/3 more cost) generate?

The ability to use them in a similar fashion that doesn't automatically require the use of a MPA? Admittedly, most attack powers are instant and not constant, so this abiltiy won't come up often, but it's there.

I think the rules should try to set out how the game works by default, not set out a bunch of choices for the GM to choose from. House rules are fine, but there should be a default system.

I agree. The system should be used to make stuff, not make the actual system that is used to make stuff. This was my impression of Fuzion, and why it didn't appeal to me at all.

If MPA's do not exist, Linked should not permit an MPA. Under the present system, Linked reduces options (appropriate for a limitation) rather than granting an option that cannot be obtained otherwise.

I think there would still be a place for Linked in a system without MPAs -- for years that's how the group I played with handled it. For instance, a Linked group of powers IMO should constrain its total AP to the campaign's AP limit.

[Chris Goodwin]

As I wrote. we saw that as a built-in advantage to the limitation. Sort of like Always On in 3e, which IIRC was the only way to make an END-using power persistent. Anyway, it worked quite well.

If by "worked quite well" you mean "brought about literally years of nasty discussion without resolving anything" then yes, it did indeed "work quite well". The hardest of the hard core 6e discussion is nothing compared to the sheer ferocity and power of the Great Linked Debate.

And, as Hugh pointed out, they changed Always On.

[Chris Goodwin]

I think there would still be a place for Linked in a system without MPAs -- for years that's how the group I played with handled it. For instance, a Linked group of powers IMO should constrain its total AP to the campaign's AP limit.

If you can't use MPAs, a Limitation should not add functionality by allowing them. That is rightly called an Advantage.

If MPAs go away, then note that two weapon attacks also go away.

Also note that you can't do things like "10d6 Energy Blast + 4d6 Energy Blast 2xEND + 2d6 Energy Blast 3xEND 14- Activation"

Unless you include an Advantage to do those things.

And I think I've just rehashed the old Great Linked Debate. Did I leave anything out?

[rreay]

In 5er, this was extended to two or more powers in any single framework.


It was? I don't have 5er so I can't look that up, but in 5th it's pretty clear that it's allowed. In fact the FAQ says:

Can a character use a slot in a Power Framework as the attack for a Sweep, or as part of a multiple-Power attack?

A character could use a Power Framework slot as one of the powers in a multiple-Power attack, provided the following apply: it’s the only power in the Framework used in the attack; the Framework is a Multipower/VPP with enough reserve/pool points to allocate to two or more slots used in the attack simultaneously; the Framework is an EC with two or more Attack Powers.

If a character wanted to Sweep with two or more powers in a Power Framework, against either a single target or multiple targets, one of these same three conditions would have to apply.

Of course, in either case, the GM should forbid a character to use a power in a Framework as part of a multiple-Power attack or a Sweep if doing so would defy common sense or dramatic sense, or would cause game balance problems. For example, it’s not uncommon for Champions characters to have Multipowers that are essentially a long list of different offensive applications of the same power. Firewing’s Fiery Attacks Multipower, which is just different ways to “tune” or project a bolt of fire, provides a perfect example. In that case, even if the character’s Multipower reserve is large enough to let him use two powers at once, the GM probably should not let him use two slots with a multiple-Power attack or Sweep, since it’s all really “one” power.


If this is true, it's kind of a bummer. I just built a character a 90 pt multipower and 60 point multi slots just for MPAs.

[SteveZilla]

If you can't use MPAs, a Limitation should not add functionality by allowing them. That is rightly called an Advantage.

Well, I've never read any of The Great Linked Debate -- I missed that party.

Either with or without MPAs, there needs to be a way to build a single Power (big 'P') that is constructed from more than a single power (little 'p') in the system. Without MPAs, IMO Linked could be a -0 Limitation (or +0 Advantage if you prefer).

If MPAs go away, then note that two weapon attacks also go away.

Would that also mean no HtH maneuvers that gives multiple attacks against either the same or different targets (like Sweep)?

Also note that you can't do things like "10d6 Energy Blast + 4d6 Energy Blast 2xEND + 2d6 Energy Blast 3xEND 14- Activation"

Unless you include an Advantage to do those things.

I would object to loosing the ability to build a Partially Limited power, which IMO is clearly different than linking two powers (even two instances of the same power) together. Requiring an advantage to build a partially limited power doesn't make any sense to me. IMO it would be unduly penalizing a valid build that has nothing to do with linking two different powers together (like a "super push" ability).

And I think I've just rehashed the old Great Linked Debate. Did I leave anything out?[/quote]

From what I gather about The Great Linked Debate, the vitriol? ;)

[Vulcan]

(a) The Original Hero Guys were on record as stating that MPAs are the way they'd played, and that the fact they were absent from the first four editions was an oversight they'd assumed were rectified at some point.

(b) Linked doesn't work without the MPA rules. Linked assumes you can use MPA. Breaking that brings us back to the days of the Great Linked Debate, and no one wants that.

We had always assumed that for two attack powers to go off together, one had to be Triggered by the other. Then it could be Linked if that was the only way it could be used.

[Markdoc]

If MPAs go away, then note that two weapon attacks also go away.

Since our games do not use MPA, but do use sweep, and two weapon fighting (there are multiple ways to build that in Hero system) I'd have to say no, that's not the case.

Also note that you can't do things like "10d6 Energy Blast + 4d6 Energy Blast 2xEND + 2d6 Energy Blast 3xEND 14- Activation"

Stuff and nonsense. That's a single, partially limited 16d6 EB power. It has nothing to do with MPAs. 5ER specifically notes that the sort of construct you have given above is a single power to all intents and purposes.

Linked, OTOH, allows you to fire two powers together - but they remain two seperate powers.

And I think I've just rehashed the old Great Linked Debate. Did I leave anything out?

I don't really recall the linked debate, but if that's all it has to offer, then it's clear there's not much to it. The rules are fairly explicit, and perfectly sensible.

To sum up:
"10d6 Energy Blast + 4d6 Energy Blast 2xEND + 2d6 Energy Blast 3xEND 14- Activation" is a single, partially-limited 18d6 power, of 90 active points. It can only be used as a single attack and defences are applied once.

"10d6 Energy Blast + 4d6 Energy Blast 2xEND, Linked + 2d6 Energy Blast 3xEND 14- Activation, linked" are three seperate powers, the largest of which is 50 active points. They can only be used as a single attack, but defences are applied against all three attacks. In this example, linked is clearly a limitation, but a useless one - you would be far better off with attack number 1, rather than the meagre savings from linked.

cheers, Mark

[Balabanto]

The problem is that MPAs violate the much simpler rule of active point caps for PC's to keep things from getting out of hand. Otherwise, your game is nothing but a colossal war of escalation where everyone does nothing but raise their attacks and buy DEX and SPD. And quite frankly, my game prevents this, whereas every game I've EVER played in outside it has this problem.

Even when my PC should have the highest DEX and SPD in the game, and rightly so from age of PC and shtick, people would still build characters that are faster, more capable at the start, etc.

It turns the game into nothing but ****waving instead of a character driven story, and I don't like that feeling, so when I started running Champions, I wound up with about 50 pages of house rules.

So, when you have MPAs, if the AP cap is 70, the MPA should stop at 70, too. However, the rules do not work this way. They all go off, each individual attack in the MPA is considered to be separate. That's why the linked thing is better, because then no matter how many points you throw into the linked powers, you can only hit the AP cap at any given time and then it's curtains.

And you know, my game works. My players fight for slots. I hate the feeling that my players fight for slots, but they do.

So that's my story. Take it or leave it. I've seen the numbers and the math over a 27 year period, and have played the game since it was a little blue book of about 64 pages or so.

If there's one thing I don't want in 6th edition, it's more power creep. I have decently sized hands, but I don't want people to be rolling more dice than they can reasonably fit in one. (Thats' 10-12 for most people, maybe 14)

And really, this smacks of it, based on every single experience I've had.

[Hugh Neilson]

Since our games do not use MPA, but do use sweep, and two weapon fighting (there are multiple ways to build that in Hero system) I'd have to say no, that's not the case.

This would be part of the reason for bringing the MPA rules into line with the Sweep and Rapid Fire route. If I have a sword and a club, I can use a MPA to hit the same target with both weapons, but there is no way to strike one target with each weapon. If I have two swords, or two clubs, I can use a MPA to hit one target with both, I can use Sweep to hit one target with both (with entirely different impact on my character) or I can use Sweep to hit one target with each weapon. If I have one sword or one club, I can use Sweep to hit one target twice, or to hit two targets once each.

I don't find this result entirely appropriate.

Stuff and nonsense. That's a single, partially limited 16d6 EB power. It has nothing to do with MPAs. 5ER specifically notes that the sort of construct you have given above is a single power to all intents and purposes.

I agree. This raises the specter of the Deadly Blow argument, however. Is 1d6 Deadly Blow a "partially limited" power? Arguably, this is 1d6KA with no focus, plus whatever added KA I get from a weapon with a focus and independent which I didn't pay for with character points. This is a bit of an different issue, but I think 6e would benefit from clearly setting out the differences between "different attacks fired together" and "different powers making up a single attack". The 16d6 partially limited EB would be an example of the latter.

Linked, OTOH, allows you to fire two powers together - but they remain two seperate powers.

Linked REQUIRES you to fire two powers together. Shouldn't it be possible to allow this without requiring it? If MPA's are eliminated, I think this should mean splitting Linked into an advantage ("may fire together") and a limitation ("must be used together"), with the latter relevant only where the Linked powers can be used together already. This is not unprecedented - you can't limit a power with Always On unless it is already 0 END and Persistent, whether naturally or by purchase of advantages.

However, I see no reason why a 12d6 EB, +4d6 Act 11- should be viewed differently from a 12d6 EB, +4d6 Flash Act 11-. Both have a little extra 'oomph' that only kicks in sometimes. In both cases, absent limitations, I can choose to just use the 12d6 base. In theory, I can choose to use 8d6 of the base and the +4d6 (there's just no reason to do so with the EB, while there may be with the Flash).

I don't really recall the linked debate, but if that's all it has to offer, then it's clear there's not much to it. The rules are fairly explicit, and perfectly sensible.

While not involved in the debate directly, I believe the basic premise is that, if you cannot fire two separate attacks off as a single attack by the general rules, the Linked limitation should not override this general rule. Therefore, either:

- it should be possible to fire multiple attacks together if they are not Linked,
- Linked should not allow multiple attacks to be fired together, or
- there should be an advantage, or other mechanic, to allow multiple attacks to fire together, and this should be required before multiple attacks can be Linked.

The problem is that MPAs violate the much simpler rule of active point caps for PC's to keep things from getting out of hand. Otherwise, your game is nothing but a colossal war of escalation where everyone does nothing but raise their attacks and buy DEX and SPD. And quite frankly, my game prevents this, whereas every game I've EVER played in outside it has this problem.

I guess they should hire you to write 6e, since you are the only person who has ever successfully run a Hero game. I wonder how the game has survived, even thrived to some extent, when no one but you can run a proper game. In case you are wondering, your post comes off as quite condescending, at least as I read it. I am confident you did not intend that, but that is what it sounds like. Anyway, back to the actual issues.

If MPA's do, in fact, violate the AP caps, don't Sweep, Multiple Move By and Rapid Fire do the same? If the AP cap is 60, the ability to hit a target multiple times with the same 60 AP attack seems just as much a violation as the ability to hit the target with a number of different 60 AP attacks at the same time.

For that matter, I can hit you five times with an 8d6 attack using 60 AP without Sweep and its cousins, or an MPA. I just put "Autofire, 5 shots" on that 8d6 EB bringing it to 60 AP. Why isn't that 200 AP? It's the same as hitting the target with a single 40 AP power five times, and not all that different from hitting him with 5 different 40 AP powers, once each.

Even when my PC should have the highest DEX and SPD in the game, and rightly so from age of PC and shtick, people would still build characters that are faster, more capable at the start, etc.

OK, I can see a schtick that says "my character should have a high DEX and SPD". I'm not sure I see one that says "no other character should have the same or higher DEX and SPD". However, a group should have characters with different schticks. This is not, to me, a system failing but a gaming group failing. My group has always build reasonably diverse characters. At the same time, the background assumptions of the CU (not necessarily of every Supers game) is that Supers have DEX and SPD that pretty much starts at 20/4 and works its way up. It's important everyone be on the same page in this regard so that the level of DEX/SPD attributed to a rare, very slow super and an equally rare, very fast super are viewed the same.

This could be DEX 5/SPD 1 to DEX 29/SPD 7, or it could be DEX 20/SPD 4 to DEX 45/SPD 12, or anything in between. A "very fast" or "very slow" character designed under one set of assumptions is not going to work well in a game built around the other.

It turns the game into nothing but ****waving instead of a character driven story, and I don't like that feeling, so when I started running Champions, I wound up with about 50 pages of house rules.

No amount of rules can prevent powergaming. This is a player problem, or even a group problem. It is not a rules problem.


So, when you have MPAs, if the AP cap is 70, the MPA should stop at 70, too. However, the rules do not work this way. They all go off, each individual attack in the MPA is considered to be separate. That's why the linked thing is better, because then no matter how many points you throw into the linked powers, you can only hit the AP cap at any given time and then it's curtains.

I've set out other areas where the sum of AP in the attack exceeds the AP of the power above. I also dislike pure AP caps, because the results can be inappropriate. Can you buy an effective Area Effect attack or Damage Shield? Is it more effective to buy Ranged Drains, or buy max AP drains and Stretching (which is a was to put Range on a non-ranged power without boosting its AP).

Should the GM be reviewing characters for MPA abuse? Sure. But they should also be reviewing characters for other forms of abuse. Is buying three 60 point attacks more powerful than buying a single 180 point attack? I think it's far less powerful. Which is not to deny the possibility both might be excessive for the specific game.

And denial of MPA's denies some very reasonable constructs. What would be wrong with a 9d6 Light EB and a Multipower of 15 AP Light Attacks which can be added to that 9d6 EB, one at a time, such as a 3d6 Flash, 1 1/2d6 NND, Sight Flash Defense and 1d6 Ranged DEX Drain (dazzling lights)? What about a 40 STR, and a series of 2d6 Drains? "No MPA's" means "Just buy a Multipower of 60 AP attacks (a 12d6 EB, 12d6 Flash, 6d6 NND, 4 1/2d6 AVLD and 4d6 Ranged Drain) like everybody else".

[Klaus Mogensen]

While not involved in the debate directly, I believe the basic premise is that, if you cannot fire two separate attacks off as a single attack by the general rules, the Linked limitation should not override this general rule. Therefore, either:

- it should be possible to fire multiple attacks together if they are not Linked,
- Linked should not allow multiple attacks to be fired together, or
- there should be an advantage, or other mechanic, to allow multiple attacks to fire together, and this should be required before multiple attacks can be Linked.
However, you can also view Linked as something that allows building a single Power from two powers. E.g., rather than having a power that is all EB or all Flash, you can have one that is half each. Since such a composite Power tends to be less effective than a 'pure' Power, you get a limitation on the smaller component. In this interpretation, it's not "multiple attacks that can be used simultaneously, but are limited so they can't be used seperately", but "an attack that is build as a composite of lesser attacks." Hence there's no logical need from this to allow multiple-power attacks.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

I personally don't see MPA's as being so massively unbalanced.

It's just as simple as rolling it up with Sweep and Rapid Fire.

[Markdoc]

However, you can also view Linked as something that allows building a single Power from two powers. E.g., rather than having a power that is all EB or all Flash, you can have one that is half each. Since such a composite Power tends to be less effective than a 'pure' Power, you get a limitation on the smaller component. In this interpretation, it's not "multiple attacks that can be used simultaneously, but are limited so they can't be used seperately", but "an attack that is build as a composite of lesser attacks." Hence there's no logical need from this to allow multiple-power attacks.

This is pretty much how I see it. Even absent MPAs, having a Flash attack that you can use on its own vs a Flash that you can only use on a target you also energy blast (and in proportion) is a limitation: the fact that you can use it at the same time as the EB is a pretty minor advantage. In that regard, linked as a way of building compound powers makes sense.

Having said that, I wouldn't cry any tears if linked and MPA both went away to be replaced with a paragraph on building composite powers: I don't see any real difference between 10d6 EB + another 8d6 EB and 10d6 EB + 8d6 Flash.

I do agree with Hugh that we could use a single, unified approach to making multiple attacks at once. I don't however see any particular use in retaining MPA: something built around Sweep/Rapid fire as a core rule would be preferrable.

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

IMO, in Superheroic campaigns, MPA's are just fine because they have to contend with two things: High Defenses and the fact that it costs a relative boatload to do it in the first place.

IIRC, you cannot make a MPA using any combination of powers within the same Power Framework, so if you are able to make MPA's in a Superheroic campaign, then you probably darn sure paid to do it.

[Vulcan]

Our group decided not to use MPA's because of the 'AP cap violations' inherent in using them. Sure, they paid a boatload of points to have a 5 separate 14d6 attacks. But it's the equilvalent of a 14d6 AF 5-shot power - 105 AP - in a 70 AP game! Even if that's not quite violating the letter of a GM's AP cap, it sure as heck is violating the spirit!

(We refer to it as 'raping the rules.':nonp:)

[The Main Man]

Our group decided not to use MPA's because of the 'AP cap violations' inherent in using them. Sure, they paid a boatload of points to have a 5 separate 14d6 attacks. But it's the equilvalent of a 14d6 AF 5-shot power - 105 AP - in a 70 AP game! Even if that's not quite violating the letter of a GM's AP cap, it sure as heck is violating the spirit!

(We refer to it as 'raping the rules.':nonp:)

Well, 14d6 = 70 AP x 5 = 350 CP, a Standard Superheroic Character (italicized because you may have a different scale).

What else could they do?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Well, 14d6 = 70 AP x 5 = 350 CP, a Standard Superheroic Character (italicized because you may have a different scale).

What else could they do?
Well, let's say that four of the attacks are OIF (so you will still have one left if your focus gets taken away). That makes the cost 70 + 4x35 = 210. Still 130 points left for other things.

BTW, since this is a cap-70 campaign, perhaps the characters are made with more than 350 points.

- Klaus

[Kraven Kor]

I, for one, say stick to metric (for the love of god stick to metric, and I'm US)

Stick to hexes - they make much more sense and allow for much more realistic movement options. The Hex is also the SYMBOL of HERO 5E...

I'd love to see a "roll high" system and don't know why it can't just be flipped around...

11+OCV-DCV=Target - This is 8 numbers below 11, 7 numbers above for the max range.

Switch it to 10-OCV+DCV, roll over. This would change a to-hit roll for matched CV's from 11 or less, to 10 or more.

Skill rolls are 9+INT/5 or less, change to 12-INT/5. Same odds, if I'm doing my math right.

[The Main Man]

Well, let's say that four of the attacks are OIF (so you will still have one left if your focus gets taken away). That makes the cost 70 + 4x35 = 210. Still 130 points left for other things.

BTW, since this is a cap-70 campaign, perhaps the characters are made with more than 350 points.

- Klaus

70/1.5 ~46 (were you thinking OAF? The Characters probably all have only two hands)

46x4 = 184 + 70 = 254 CP

[Hugh Neilson]

However, you can also view Linked as something that allows building a single Power from two powers. E.g., rather than having a power that is all EB or all Flash, you can have one that is half each. Since such a composite Power tends to be less effective than a 'pure' Power, you get a limitation on the smaller component. In this interpretation, it's not "multiple attacks that can be used simultaneously, but are limited so they can't be used seperately", but "an attack that is build as a composite of lesser attacks." Hence there's no logical need from this to allow multiple-power attacks.

But Linked only means the powers must be used simultaneously if both powers are limited. Usually, the limitation is taken only on the smaller power, and the larger remains usable independently.

[Klaus Mogensen]

But Linked only means the powers must be used simultaneously if both powers are limited. Usually, the limitation is taken only on the smaller power, and the larger remains usable independently.
Certainly. This is like having a 12d6 EB and choosing to use only 8d6.

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

70/1.5 ~46 (were you thinking OAF? The Characters probably all have only two hands).
Yes, I was thinking OAF. If it is the same OAF for all attacks, having only two hands isn't a problem.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

Well, let's say that four of the attacks are OIF (so you will still have one left if your focus gets taken away). That makes the cost 70 + 4x35 = 210. Still 130 points left for other things.

BTW, since this is a cap-70 campaign, perhaps the characters are made with more than 350 points.

- Klaus

275. Our GM is cheap. On the other hand, we've been playing for over a decade, so we know how to get the most out of our points while staying in concept (usually:rolleyes:).

On the other hand, the 'faux-autofire' is unlikely to occur at that point level. Unless someone goes for 5-50's or -60's...

Mainly we (the players) go along with it so Dr. Destroyer doesn't have the option to use MPA's on us!!!

If one of us wants an 'MPA-like' capability we use Triggered. May be 'against the rules,' but it works for our group.

[Hugh Neilson]

Certainly. This is like having a 12d6 EB and choosing to use only 8d6.

Except that I would not allow a limitation on the last 4d6 EB "only if using first 8d6", or "only usable proportionate to first 8d6".

[Klaus Mogensen]

Except that I would not allow a limitation on the last 4d6 EB "only if using first 8d6", or "only usable proportionate to first 8d6".
Would you allow a limitation for "last 4d6 are applied seperately against defenses"?

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Yes, I was thinking OAF. If it is the same OAF for all attacks, having only two hands isn't a problem.

- Klaus

This is true, but it does show the distinct advantage of NOT buying a power frameworks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Would you allow a limitation for "last 4d6 are applied seperately against defenses"?

While I would see that as a limitation, I suggest that limitation should be greater than the Reduced Penetration limitation, which only applies the attacks separately for BOD purposes.

At the same time, if you buy an 8d6 EB and a 4d6 EB, they apply separately against defenses. An 8d6 EB and a 4d6 EB in a MPA are no different from an 8d6 EB +4d6, applies separately against defenses.

[Istaran]

Although it is a rule I disagree with, the rules have always prohibited MPA with two or more powers in the same EC. In 5er, this was extended to two or more powers in any single framework.

To me, the character who has 6 attack powers in an EC has paid 210 points, when he could have paid 90 to have the same 6 attack powers available one at a time in a Multipower. That extra 120 point cost should carry some benefits. At present, it carries only the drawback that the attacks are now all drained together. A character with the same six powers in a MP with flexible slots, costing 120 instead of 90 points, should have the ability to MPA as well - that is, mix & match within the slots. Otherwise, what benefit did that 30 points extra (1/3 more cost) generate?


So paying more points should generate better results. Makes sense.

I think the rules should try to set out how the game works by default, not set out a bunch of choices for the GM to choose from. House rules are fine, but there should be a default system.

If MPA's do not exist, Linked should not permit an MPA. Under the present system, Linked reduces options (appropriate for a limitation) rather than granting an option that cannot be obtained otherwise.

Should be MPA rules be modified to bring them more in line with Sweep and Rapid Attack? I think that all of these maneuvers, which allow characters to effectively make more than one attack as a single action, should be rationalized. Whether that means more penalties for MPA's, or less penalties for Sweep and Rapid Attack, they should be consistent. The rules for hitting the same opponent three times with my Energy Blast should not be substantially different from the rules for hitting him once with my EB, once with my KA and again with my NND.
So paying more points shouldn't generate better results. Wait, what?

MPA has a significant cost prerequisite above and beyone what Sweep, Rapid Attack, and even Autofire require in terms of cost. (Ignoring the cheesy 5 pt x2 item MPA idea. Though if the doubling rule remains it should be made clear you can't MPA with it.) It seems reasonable then that it should have less penalties to use.

[Hugh Neilson]

So paying more points shouldn't generate better results. Wait, what?

MPA has a significant cost prerequisite above and beyone what Sweep, Rapid Attack, and even Autofire require in terms of cost. (Ignoring the cheesy 5 pt x2 item MPA idea. Though if the doubling rule remains it should be made clear you can't MPA with it.) It seems reasonable then that it should have less penalties to use.

There's something to be said for this logic. At the same time, I believe it should be possible to hit three different targets, one with each attack, just as I can Sweep or Rapid Attack to hit three different targets with my EB. There is certainly an advantage to hitting the one target without the appropriate defense with my NND, the target with the defense with my EB and the Automaton with my KA, rather than chosing to hit each target with the same attack.

I think the rules should be dovetailed, but I have not given a lot of thought to how they should read. Perhaps the Multiple Attacks rules should provide for the following (as a very rough starting point):

- the character can use each power which he has paid for, and which could be used simulatneously under the normal rules, once in a phase without penalty, provided they use the same type of roll to hit (DEX CV vxs DEX CV; all ranged or all HTH). Thus, attacking Target A with my NND, RKA and EB would be the same as the current MPA rules.

- each additional target results in a -1 cumulative penalty to OCV for all attacks as the character divides his focus.

- each additional use of the same power results in a -1 cumulative penalty to OCV for all attacks as the character divides his focus. The power used the most times in the phase determines the penalty (using three attacks three times results in a -2 penalty, not -6).

- each additional type of attack (range; HTH; ECV rather than DEX CV) imposes a further -2 cumulative penalty to OCV for all attacks as the character divides his focus.

- each attack is rolled separately, and its success or failure resolved separately [I envision a series of attacks fired quickly in succession here.] Where multiple attacks of the same type are used against a single target, the attacker may choose to fire them as a single combined attack, with a single roll determining success or failure for all of the attacks [a combined attack, as envisioned by the current MPA rules].

- Linked attacks follow all of the above rules except that they are always resolved as a single roll and must all be directed at the same target. A character with a Linked EB and Flash could target two different targets with the same attack (rolling to hit once against each of them, with a -1 OCV for the single added target and -1 for using the same attack twice), or twice against one target (with the same -1 OCV penalty for double use of an attack). He could not fire the EB against one target and the Flash against another.

That seems a reasonable framework. Of course, we might want to keep a -2 penalty for each usage, or vary the penalties between types. It definitely needs playtesting.

As to the "doubled for +5", I think this needs to be addressed in some manner. Even if it had no other issues, the ability to double focused powers, but not innate powers, provides an unreasonable advantage to powers with the Focus limitation.

[Talon]

Regarding MPAs, 5ER has a lot of "if the GM prefers" text scattered about the Multiple-Power Attack section. This makes it clear that the concept is one that GMs may wish to restrict or alter for their game -- but there is not a coherent discussion.

In 6E, while I think MPAs should definitely be included (and I like folding them into Sweep and the other multi-attack rules), I think that the concept of combining multiple Attack Powers into a single Attack Roll could become another Optional Combat rule.

[Klaus Mogensen]

It seems to me that the debate has largely died down. Might this not be a good time to close it and let Steve sort it through? Hopefully he will then call for a second round based on the suggestions he wants to test.

- Klaus

[Kdansky]

That seems very reasonable :)

[AnotherSkip]

Still say this is a Dark Champions Style Distraction....

[Talon]

It seems to me that the debate has largely died down. Might this not be a good time to close it and let Steve sort it through? Hopefully he will then call for a second round based on the suggestions he wants to test.

Makes sense, if Steve is ready to pay that level of attention. If not, I'd say keep it open -- there has been a lot of repetition but also some good stuff over the past couple weeks.

[The Main Man]

This was also posted in Combat Issues:

Here's a little tidbit about Move-Through: It's inconsistent with the Falling rules.

While the following suggestions do not completely solve that issue, I think that they approach it.

1) If a character is moving through objects, they should be able to continue until they either run out of movement in their phase or until an object stops them.


2) I think that if a character knocks back a target with a Move-Through then they should be able to continue moving until they either use up their movement or if they fail to knock back a target, whichever happens first.


3) A character should be able to perform multiple move-throughs.


Sure they could be devastating, but that's assuming that they can hit after the accumulated velocity and multiple attack penalties.

But think about this too: Who would want to line up to get hit head on by characters like The Flash or the Juggernaut?


I think that these two implementations would be better than AOE: Trail.

They also would make Damage Shield a more valuable purchase.

[AnotherSkip]

It seems to me that the debate has largely died down. Might this not be a good time to close it and let Steve sort it through? Hopefully he will then call for a second round based on the suggestions he wants to test.

- Klaus

And a "where are we now" would let us know whethere we need to be COm defenseive or Offensieve

[The Main Man]

Yeah, I'd like to see a second round start too.

[rjcurrie]

As for Steve being ready to deal with these issues, he has said several times that he will not be reading these threads until he is ready to start working on 6th Edition which is currently planned to be in February.

[The Main Man]

As for Steve being ready to deal with these issues, he has said several times that he will not be reading these threads until he is ready to start working on 6th Edition which is currently planned to be in February.

Have you ever seen The Thing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/)?

[Vulcan]

Which has what to do with 6E?

[The Main Man]

Think about it for a while. :D

It might take a long while, but it'll come to you.

I'll even quote rjcurrie for (infinitesimally slighter) clarification.

[ghost-angel]

Steve will shut it down when he wants to read through it; I seriously doubt there will be a "second round." From what I've gathered this is it - state your opinions and thoughts, Steve will do the rest. I would certainly hope we don't get 6E by committee.

Now; onwards to a Rules suggestion for Steve to look at.

Sense; from a discussion elsewhere.
Under the Enhanced Senses Power we are told that the Sight Group "does not have the full discriminatory" - I think all this does is confuse things and cause more problems than it solves.

I have a theory as to why this statement is there; having mostly to do with the Simulated Sense Rule and Group Modifiers automatically bestowing them on Senses placed under the Group.

I suggest that the Sigh Group have: Targeting, Range, Sense and Normal Sight only has Discriminatory by default.

It avoids confusion as to what "cruder degree" could mean; and prevents one from trying to figure out if there is a step between Non-Discriminatory and Discriminatory for any Sense.

Basically; just make it less confusing and easier to use.

[Vondy]

I, for one, say stick to metric (for the love of god stick to metric, and I'm US)

Stick to hexes - they make much more sense and allow for much more realistic movement options. The Hex is also the SYMBOL of HERO 5E...


I agree... BUT!

Drop "inches" and call it 2 Meters per hex.

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh absolutely, but there's a certain cutoff point at which something moves from Talent to Power (not that that cutoff could ever be solidly pinpointed, but that's not really necessary here). Talents usually model what's plausible for norms, the smaller things, which is why Pulp Hero and the like uses them.

You know, I would be quite all right with Talents being eliminated entirely in 6e. They add no mechanics to the game. They are simply abilities constructed with powers, characteristics and skills already in those sections. Given this, they could be removed entirely as a separate section, and instead used as sample constructs of abilities in different genres.

In fact, perhaps referring to sample power constructs as "Spells", "Superpowers", "Talents" and any number of other labels, more or less specific to individual genres, might assist in getting the point that Hero is more than Superheroes, and that Powers are functional in other genres across. Especially if every power had a minimum 3 sample constructs, no more than one of which could be specific to any one genre or label (unless we're well over three constructs).

[Markdoc]

You know, I would be quite all right with Talents being eliminated entirely in 6e. They add no mechanics to the game. They are simply abilities constructed with powers, characteristics and skills already in those sections. Given this, they could be removed entirely as a separate section, and instead used as sample constructs of abilities in different genres.

I'd like to retain talents, but specifically as "example power builds for extraordinary talents" - not a seperate category, with odd builds.

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

New Topic:

Rounding Rules - In 6e, it should be stated clearly that things with a listed price in half-points should not be rounded. The half-points should be retained. Fortunately, there are only a few things like this: END, COM, and some PSLs. (IIRC, that's it. Did I forget any others?) If your points come out with a half-point left over, buy yourself one extra point of COM or END. Be the only kid on your block with an odd COM or END stat!

[rjcurrie]

New Topic:

Rounding Rules - In 6e, it should be stated clearly that things with a listed price in half-points should not be rounded. The half-points should be retained. Fortunately, there are only a few things like this: END, COM, and some PSLs. (IIRC, that's it. Did I forget any others?) If your points come out with a half-point left over, buy yourself one extra point of COM or END. Be the only kid on your block with an odd COM or END stat!

Personally, I would like to see 1/2 point costs disappear entirely. It's a needless complication.

[Klaus Mogensen]

[quote=PhilFleischmann;1716644]Rounding Rules - In 6e, it should be stated clearly that things with a listed price in half-points should not be rounded.

It should also be standardized whether fractional benefits should be rounded down or off. Most things are rounded off now, but damage dice from STR and PRE are rounded down, and so is SPD. Personally, I would like to see everything rounded down, since this is easier than rounding off.

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

Drop "inches" and call it 2 Meters per hex.That, I definitely could live with.

[PhilFleischmann]

Personally, I would like to see 1/2 point costs disappear entirely. It's a needless complication.
Dropping the 1/2-point costs of those three items simplifies the HERO System about as much as removing one preset radio button simplifies a car.

[SCUBA Hero]

New Topic:

Rounding Rules - In 6e, it should be stated clearly that things with a listed price in half-points should not be rounded. The half-points should be retained. Fortunately, there are only a few things like this: END, COM, and some PSLs. (IIRC, that's it. Did I forget any others?) If your points come out with a half-point left over, buy yourself one extra point of COM or END. Be the only kid on your block with an odd COM or END stat!I don't know about dropping half-points (personally, I tend towards over-crunchiness so I like it, but it probably adds little crunch for much perceived 'mathiness' in Hero), but the rounding rules should be clearly stated, with examples, and then used consistently: round up, nearest, down. Ambiguity should be minimized (ideally removed, but I don't think that's possible in something as complex as the Hero System).

Actually, *any* math should include examples. For instance - I always thought that +1 STUN Multiplier on a Killing Attack made it a straight 1d6 -> 1d6 -1 +1 = 1d6. That's incorrect: [1d6 - 1] minimum 1 + 1 = 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

[SteveZilla]

Drop "inches" and call it 2 Meters per hex.

That, I definitely could live with.

I agree that the term "inch" should be replaced with "hex". For one thing, not all hex-grid maps use a 1 inch hex size. And I can see that using an english unit in a metric game can be a bit confusing -- even if most hexmaps here in the U.S. do use 1 inch hexes.

Currently, I do want to keep hexes. I am uncertain of now well/easy a "gridless" system will work, especially given all the AoE/Explosion powers.


Rounding Rules - In 6e, it should be stated clearly that things with a listed price in half-points should not be rounded. The half-points should be retained. Fortunately, there are only a few things like this: END, COM, and some PSLs. (IIRC, that's it. Did I forget any others?)

I could see this. I also see no problem with allowing a purchase of END, COM, or PSL to have it's final cost rounded. Honestly, I don't see what would be so broken with allowing someone to buy 21 END for 10 points instead of 20 END. I really doubt that 1 END is going to be a game-breaker. (And no, a player can't buy 3 END twenty times and expect each "purchase" to round individually).

Personally, I would like to see 1/2 point costs disappear entirely. It's a needless complication.

Doubling everything would retain the system's balance exactly as it is but get rid of half-point costs in a point-based system (not half-point-based system).

Dropping the 1/2-point costs of those three items simplifies the HERO System about as much as removing one preset radio button simplifies a car.

Heh. True, though eliminating all base costs that include half-points would be a small start to reducing the (IMO) perceived mathiness of Hero.

It should also be standardized whether fractional benefits should be rounded down or off. Most things are rounded off now, but damage dice from STR and PRE are rounded down, and so is SPD. Personally, I would like to see everything rounded down, since this is easier than rounding off.

Given that there are now rules for purchasing half-dice and 1 pip effects for any die-based power, I don't see a need to round off damage to whole dice.

Actually, *any* math should include examples. For instance - I always thought that +1 STUN Multiplier on a Killing Attack made it a straight 1d6 -> 1d6 -1 +1 = 1d6. That's incorrect: [1d6 - 1] minimum 1 + 1 = 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I agree. I can't count how many arguments I got into about the +1 STUN Multiplier on KAs and how it affects the final multiplier. I also think it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state the rounding rules one time in the Advantages/Limitations section.

I wouldn't mind the "SPD rounds down, except for the purchasing of the next incriment of SPD" going away. It's an exception to the rounding rule, which has its own eception that only applies to buying more of it. :confused:

There should be functinally no difference between one character who has a 3.8 (unrounded) SPD naturally, and a character who has a 3.0 SPD that has been Aided 8 points (pre-fade). In both cases the characters still only act at SPD 3 since, per the Adjustment Rules, it takes a full incriment to make an impact. I would also allow fractional SPD purchases (Mr. 3.8 SPD could buy in his Multipower: +2.2 SPD).

Barring that, I would propose allowing a player to sell back the fractional portion of his base SPD.

However, if all Secondary Stats are decoupled, then there would likely never again be fractional SPDs, making this all moot.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Given that there are now rules for purchasing half-dice and 1 pip effects for any die-based power, I don't see a need to round off damage to whole dice.
Nor was that what I commented on. Whether you round damage from STR (or Presence Attack die from PRE) to a pip or to a whole die, you always round down. All other characteristic-derived traits, except SPD, are rounded off. I would like to see this unified (preferably as round down).

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

I agree... BUT!

Drop "inches" and call it 2 Meters per hex.

The best part about switching from inches = hex to just meters is that movement becomes more granular and it is easier to convert anything into the system.

[SteveZilla]

The best part about switching from inches = hex to just meters is that movement becomes more granular and it is easier to convert anything into the system.

What's so hard about dividing by two? ;)

The thing is, without specific, discrete hexes to point to and say "My AoE: Radius 7" EB lands there." and everybody can clearly figure out whether or not they are affected by it -- and a gridless system where you'd have to pick a spot on the map and use a physical template to define what is affected. And if using a template for the AoE in a gridless map, does it affect the target that is only half-covered, 1/4 covered, or barely touching?

[Markdoc]

What's so hard about dividing by two? ;)

The thing is, without specific, discrete hexes to point to and say "My AoE: Radius 7" EB lands there." and everybody can clearly figure out whether or not they are affected by it -- and a gridless system where you'd have to pick a spot on the map and use a physical template to define what is affected. And if using a template for the AoE in a gridless map, does it affect the target that is only half-covered, 1/4 covered, or barely touching?

Steve made it pretty clear he was not talking about dropping the use of hexes, merely dropping the use of the word "inch" to describe a hex. He's absolutely right - it's pointless and confusing when the rest of the system is in metric. It's a hex - why not call it a hex?

So instead of saying you had an AoE radius 7" EB, you'd say you had an AoE radius 7 hex EB. It'd still work the same.

cheers, Mark

[Netzilla]

Steve made it pretty clear he was not talking about dropping the use of hexes, merely dropping the use of the word "inch" to describe a hex. He's absolutely right - it's pointless and confusing when the rest of the system is in metric. It's a hex - why not call it a hex?

So instead of saying you had an AoE radius 7" EB, you'd say you had an AoE radius 7 hex EB. It'd still work the same.

cheers, Mark

Actually, the way I understood it would be that you'd say you had an AoE radius 14m EB. Then, if you're on a 1 hex = 1m board, it would be a 14 hex radius. If you were on a 1 hex = 2m board, it would be a 7 hex radius. If you were on a 1 hex = 3m board, it would be a 5 hex radius, and so forth.

But, yes, none of this precludes the use of hexes or defaulting to 1 hex = 2 meters as a standard. Dropping the 1" notation in favor of real-world measurements seems like a good move to me.

[Vondy]

Actually, the way I understood it would be that you'd say you had an AoE radius 14m EB.

This is how I write it out on the sheet.

[BobGreenwade]

The best part about switching from inches = hex to just meters is that movement becomes more granular and it is easier to convert anything into the system.Anything, that is, except movement and placement on hex maps. (That's not impossible to convert; it's just not easier.)

[SteveZilla]

Steve made it pretty clear he was not talking about dropping the use of hexes, merely dropping the use of the word "inch" to describe a hex. He's absolutely right - it's pointless and confusing when the rest of the system is in metric. It's a hex - why not call it a hex?

So instead of saying you had an AoE radius 7" EB, you'd say you had an AoE radius 7 hex EB. It'd still work the same.

cheers, Mark

From this thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68899), I gathered that he had already decided to go gridless:

Area of effect: Line and No Range
I was wondering about AOE: Line attacks. One of my PCs has an attack based almost totally off the Firebolt attack described on the sidebar of 248 5ER. When you're dealing with no-range Line AOEs, does the line have to trace in a straight line out from the PC?

The reason I'm asking is that I noticed that, with hexes, in order to have a straight "clean" line of hexes you have only six directions you can fire in, and that feels kind of artificial. So:

Can Line AOE attacks be fired in directions other than the six sides of the hex the PC is standing on? For Cones, it says that the cone has to "point" to the PC unless it's an Indirect attack-that's why I'm asking, to see if the same thing would apply here.

I found it extremely awkward for the PC to have to make a Half Move just to position themselves to hit an enemy with one of the six "clean" lines that radiate out from a hex on a regular hex sheet.

You've brought up just one of many reasons why I am getting rid of measuring anything in "hexes" in 6E.

In the situation where a character's orientation doesn't match the hex grid on your map, just measure what the AoE: Line would cover and apply that using ordinary measurement methods. The Line would be 1" (6.5 feet, probably rounded down to 6 for convenience) wide and X" long (X being defined by what he paid for). Just measure that out with a ruler or something.


His answer would seem to indicate ditching metric as well, but I really hope not.

[Netzilla]

From this thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68899), I gathered that he had already decided to go gridless:



His answer would seem to indicate ditching metric as well, but I really hope not.

Well, the post you quoted Steve L specifically wrote "...character's orientation doesn't match the hex grid on your map..." So, a map with a grid is still there. He was just addressing the point that characters don't have to be oriented to a specific hex face and how to adjudicate that.

I still don't see how expressing ranges, area of effect and so forth in real world measurements somehow precludes the use of hexes.

[The Main Man]

Well, the post you quoted Steve L specifically wrote "...character's orientation doesn't match the hex grid on your map..." So, a map with a grid is still there. He was just addressing the point that characters don't have to be oriented to a specific hex face and how to adjudicate that.

I still don't see how expressing ranges, area of effect and so forth in real world measurements somehow precludes the use of hexes.

Well, simply put... it doesn't.

It's just [slightly] more complex IMO to say that 1" = 1 Hex = 2m vs. 1 Hex = 2m.

But even that is improved with switching to metric expression because then it is easier to scale up or down from 2m.

[ghost-angel]

Personally - I'd prefer ditching Hexes and using Inches.

Remove that whole grid thing, get out a tape measure and go. 1" = 1m.
If you need to use a Hex-Grid just decide on scale and go.

Either way, I'd like to see measurements in 1m increments just because that makes the base measurement a +1 scale (3 meters away is not 1.5" or 1.5 Hexes but 3 Meters).

[Vondy]

Personally - I'd prefer ditching Hexes and using Inches.

Remove that whole grid thing, get out a tape measure and go. 1" = 1m.
If you need to use a Hex-Grid just decide on scale and go.

Either way, I'd like to see measurements in 1m increments just because that makes the base measurement a +1 scale (3 meters away is not 1.5" or 1.5 Hexes but 3 Meters).

I would go a step further: only use meters and put a note in the sidebar about conversions in the event the group uses miniatures, which is where the whole notion of inches comes from in the first place [its a war-gaming legacy item]. I don't think inches or hexes need to be listed in the write ups, or used as a descriptor in the books. Just use meters.

[BobGreenwade]

I would go a step further: only use meters and put a note in the sidebar about conversions in the event the group uses miniatures....I think it'd take quite a bit more than a sidebar. But that's just me.

[Vondy]

I think it'd take quite a bit more than a sidebar. But that's just me.

I didn't mean metric conversions. I meant: meters to inches.

"If you need to convert meters to inches for table-top play 1M = 1 Inch"

Doesn't seem like a lengthy explanation to me.

[BobGreenwade]

I didn't mean metric conversions. I meant: meters to inches.

"If you need to convert meters to inches for table-top play 1M = 1 Inch"

Doesn't seem like a lengthy explanation to me.How do we map odd numbers of meters for movement and range? How do we map Turn Mode? How to we work Area Of Effect and Explosion? How do we handle facing? Those are just the simplest questions that I can think of that would have to be added (or, more accurately, added back in) for use with figures.

[Vondy]

How do we map odd numbers of meters for movement and range? How do we map Turn Mode? How to we work Area Of Effect and Explosion? How do we handle facing? Those are just the simplest questions that I can think of that would have to be added (or, more accurately, added back in) for use with figures.

In meters. All of those things are done in meters. What is the problem? All it takes is one note saying: for table top use convert meters to inches. You just take the manuscript, you bring up your find-replace function, and you go:

Find: Inches
Replace: Meters

Then you click "OK."

I simplify for effect, of course, but the essential point is the same. 1" = 1 Hex = 2 Meters. How hard is it to change the expression from inches to meters? Not very. It doesn't change change the game one iota unless we actually change 1" = 1 Hex = 1M. Even then, aside from evaluating the cost of area modifiers and a few movement powers its not much work to implement.

Hence my assertion that it would just take a sidebar note for table-top conversion. The text is already written. I merely propose the text express normative units of measure instead of war-gaming units of measure. Converting 1 meter to 1 inch, or 1 meter to 1 hex, or even 2 meters to either of those things, is no harder than doing it in reverse as we presently do to determine meters, kilometers, and the like.

Of course, if we're going metric: why are we using inches, again?

[SteveZilla]

I would go a step further: only use meters and put a note in the sidebar about conversions in the event the group uses miniatures, which is where the whole notion of inches comes from in the first place [its a war-gaming legacy item]. I don't think inches or hexes need to be listed in the write ups, or used as a descriptor in the books. Just use meters.

Vondy, I'm unsure -- are you proposing that Hero System combats go gridless and use 1 inch = 1 meter, or just change the game scale hexes to 1 meter across?

[Netzilla]

Vondy, I'm unsure -- are you proposing that Hero System combats go gridless and use 1 inch = 1 meter, or just change the game scale hexes to 1 meter across?

I don't think he's proposing either. All he (and I believe Steve Long) is proposing is that all measurements be given in real-world measurements. There would be no references to inches or hexes on the character sheet at all.

In the rule-book, there would be a single notation stating that if you wanted to use a hex grid, the standard is to make 1 hex equal 2 meters. If you wanted to go gridless, the standard is 1 inch (~25mm) equals 2 meters. If you want to use a different scale, you can do that to.

Gamers have been doing this since before RPGs existed by converting real-world equipment (weapons, vehicles, etc) to tabletop measurements. It's really not at all new or difficult.

[Chris Goodwin]

Steve, how about generalizing the notion of a magic system out to other types of powers (psi, nanotech, etc.), and giving notes for creation of generalized power systems.

[rjcurrie]

Steve, how about generalizing the notion of a magic system out to other types of powers (psi, nanotech, etc.), and giving notes for creation of generalized power systems.


I think that this is something best left for genre books.

[Vondy]

I don't think he's proposing either. All he (and I believe Steve Long) is proposing is that all measurements be given in real-world measurements. There would be no references to inches or hexes on the character sheet at all.

In the rule-book, there would be a single notation stating that if you wanted to use a hex grid, the standard is to make 1 hex equal 2 meters. If you wanted to go gridless, the standard is 1 inch (~25mm) equals 2 meters. If you want to use a different scale, you can do that to.

Gamers have been doing this since before RPGs existed by converting real-world equipment (weapons, vehicles, etc) to tabletop measurements. It's really not at all new or difficult.

Correct.

[Vondy]

Vondy, I'm unsure -- are you proposing that Hero System combats go gridless and use 1 inch = 1 meter, or just change the game scale hexes to 1 meter across?

Netzilla hit the point I was making in his post above. I quote it here for reference:

I don't think he's proposing either. All he (and I believe Steve Long) is proposing is that all measurements be given in real-world measurements. There would be no references to inches or hexes on the character sheet at all.

In the rule-book, there would be a single notation stating that if you wanted to use a hex grid, the standard is to make 1 hex equal 2 meters. If you wanted to go gridless, the standard is 1 inch (~25mm) equals 2 meters. If you want to use a different scale, you can do that to.

Gamers have been doing this since before RPGs existed by converting real-world equipment (weapons, vehicles, etc) to tabletop measurements. It's really not at all new or difficult.

My reason: the book should use plain English wherever possible.

As for whether 1 Hex = 1 meter or 1 Hex = 2 meters, I hold no strong opinion. I would prefer 1 hex or 1 inch = 1 meter for simplicity's sake. But, as that would require a modicum of re-costing in terms of some movement powers, I could understand if it was left at 2 meters.

[caris]

I think that this is something best left for genre books.

Except, he is talking about the general concept, which has broad application across numerous settings and multiple genres. While details that pertain to specifics should be in genre books, the concept desreves some mention in the core rules.

[Chris Goodwin]

Except, he is talking about the general concept, which has broad application across numerous settings and multiple genres. While details that pertain to specifics should be in genre books, the concept desreves some mention in the core rules.

This is exactly it.

[PhilFleischmann]

One other consideration is that miniatures and cardboard minis are scaled to 1" = 2m.

[Vondy]

One other consideration is that miniatures and cardboard minis are scaled to 1" = 2m.

Which is reason enough to leave the scale as is. I still think it should be expressed in meters in the book's body text - rather than inches or hexes.

[Rockhoof]

If you abstract the scale to simply hexes, whatever scale you choose simply 'works' with the rules. Define a 'straight' line as the minimum number of hexes between any two centers of a hex. This is a far more versatile solution.:)

[SCUBA Hero]

NEW IDEA:

(well, not really.)

I'd like to see STUN-Only PD and ED. This gets back to my idea that under the current system to make a character that can't be Stunned/knocked unconscious requires making that character essentially invulnerable to Normal BODY damage.

[SteveZilla]

My reason: the book should use plain English wherever possible.

As for whether 1 Hex = 1 meter or 1 Hex = 2 meters, I hold no strong opinion. I would prefer 1 hex or 1 inch = 1 meter for simplicity's sake. But, as that would require a modicum of re-costing in terms of some movement powers, I could understand if it was left at 2 meters.

I see no problem with replacing the term "inch" (as regards to a single hex on a hex-map) with some other term (like "hex"). Because the physical size of the grid on the map doesn't speak to the game scale that equates physical distance to the hex. I could be using a map with 3 inch hexes and without any problem state that the scale is 1 hex = 2m. It would only make for a much larger map, which is of course inmaterial to the rulebook.

If all measurements on a character's sheet & in the rulebook are given in meters, then either all the measurements need to be in even incriments, or we'd need rules for how to handle an odd measurement (like Stretching 5m) on a map with 2m hexes.

[SteveZilla]

NEW IDEA:

(well, not really.)

I'd like to see STUN-Only PD and ED. This gets back to my idea that under the current system to make a character that can't be Stunned/knocked unconscious requires making that character essentially invulnerable to Normal BODY damage.

Why not just the amount needed with "Only Vs Stun Damage(-1/2)"?

We could possibly change the way Normal BODY is counted to this:

1 = 0 BODY
2 = 0 BODY
3 = 1 BODY
4 = 1 BODY
5 = 2 BODY
6 = 2 BODY

The average is the same (1 BODY per d6), but results in a more "volitile" range of results, making characters less likely to be "immune" to normal body damage.

[SteveZilla]

If you abstract the scale to simply hexes, whatever scale you choose simply 'works' with the rules. Define a 'straight' line as the minimum number of hexes between any two centers of a hex. This is a far more versatile solution.:)

Except that it is often possible to draw two different, but equaly counted, paths between two hex centers. However, I don't see a real problem with allowing the choice to be made by the character using the power, each time the power is used.

[Klaus Mogensen]

One other consideration is that miniatures and cardboard minis are scaled to 1" = 2m.
Actually, most other games I've played use 1" = 5ft ~ 1½m.
Which is another reason to switch to real-world measures, as it avoids confusion.

If you then want to use a hex map (or square map, for that matter), you can decide which scale suits you. For fantasy campaigns, you may want to use 1"=1m, for superheroes 1"=2m, and for mecha games 1"=5m.

- Klaus

[Rockhoof]

Except that it is often possible to draw two different, but equaly counted, paths between two hex centers. However, I don't see a real problem with allowing the choice to be made by the character using the power, each time the power is used.


I consider that choice to be a necessary feature of trying to trace a line in a system that abstracts position to a coarse grid. The alternative is to succumb to the same problem roguelikes have, where you can only fire along the compass rose[1].

SFX: A character can make small adjustments in aim to avoid hitting objects that he does not wish to - just like IRL.


[1] This is a deliberate design decision in roguelikes like early versions of Nethack, where input was limited to what you could find on the keyboard. You can now '*' target your spells, but it requires many extra keystrokes and the further away, the more keystrokes. Angband derived games ameliorate this somewhat by allowing [Tab] targeting after using '*' to get into free-targeting mode, but the whole process still breaks the flow of the game rather jarringly. This sort of thing is simply unnecessary in a tabletop RPG.

[Vulcan]

NEW IDEA:

(well, not really.)

I'd like to see STUN-Only PD and ED. This gets back to my idea that under the current system to make a character that can't be Stunned/knocked unconscious requires making that character essentially invulnerable to Normal BODY damage.

We already have that. Take a -1 limitation on PD or ED.

Edit: Beat to it by SteveZilla.

[The Main Man]

Why not just the amount needed with "Only Vs Stun Damage(-1/2)"?

We could possibly change the way Normal BODY is counted to this:

1 = 0 BODY
2 = 0 BODY
3 = 1 BODY
4 = 1 BODY
5 = 2 BODY
6 = 2 BODY

The average is the same (1 BODY per d6), but results in a more "volitile" range of results, making characters less likely to be "immune" to normal body damage.

OT1H your suggestion makes rolling a 6 mean a little bit less since you still get 2 BODY on a "5."

OTOH your suggestion evenly divides rolling BODY.

[SteveZilla]

OT1H your suggestion makes rolling a 6 mean a little bit less since you still get 2 BODY on a "5."

OTOH your suggestion evenly divides rolling BODY.

Well, considering the current method is 1=0 BODY, 2-5=1 BODY, 6=2BODY; I wanted to not inflate the amount of BODY an attack would do (Max = 2 BODY), and not skew/weight the results in a way different than is current (Average = 1 BODY, MIN=0 BODY), but yet add more variability to the result.

Currently, the only way to get a Max Body result on 12d6 is to roll all 6's. With my proposal, all 5's or 6's will result in a Max Body roll. Still rare, but not nearly as nigh-impossible as 12 sixes.

[Hugh Neilson]

We already have that. Take a -1 limitation on PD or ED.

How many GM's will allow a character in a 12DC game, for example, to take "Not vs Body" on his defenses in excess of, say, 15 for a -1 limitation?

[The Main Man]

First of all, I am in favor of Killing Attacks being a Power Advantage for Normal Attacks so that damage is more consistent.

So here's an idea regarding Killing Attacks that I had last night:

As it stands:

Armor Piercing halves the target's defenses

Penetrating bypasses a minimum amount of damage past the defenses (BODY for Killing Attacks as they currently are vs. STUN for Normal Attacks)

Since AP and Pen do not stack their effects, what if "Killing Damage" was a Power Advantage that stacks onto them to increase their potency?


With this kind of change:

AP would quarter the opponent's defenses for subtracting BODY damage

Pen would instead have a minimum amount of BODY that bypasses defenses.


I would suggest that "Killing" would be worth +1/2 since it must stack with AP or Pen which effectively makes it a +1 Power Advantage.


Now that brings me to the other half of the equation: Resistance.

I think that Resistant is already a +1/2 Power Advantage in disguise as-is, but I might say that when Killing is stacked onto AP or Pen that Hardened is not enough to negate the overall advantage and that Resistant is in turn stacked onto Hardened so then the overall Killing Advantage is negated.

I think that if Resistant worked this way that it woud be a +1/4 Power Advantage since it would stack onto Hardened which would effectively make it a +1/2 Power Advantage like it already is.


Now that my mouthful is complete, any thoughts?

[Chris Goodwin]

Why not just the amount needed with "Only Vs Stun Damage(-1/2)"?

We could possibly change the way Normal BODY is counted to this:

1 = 0 BODY
2 = 0 BODY
3 = 1 BODY
4 = 1 BODY
5 = 2 BODY
6 = 2 BODY

The average is the same (1 BODY per d6), but results in a more "volitile" range of results, making characters less likely to be "immune" to normal body damage.

I like this idea. I like a lot.

[Netzilla]

Why not just the amount needed with "Only Vs Stun Damage(-1/2)"?

We could possibly change the way Normal BODY is counted to this:

1 = 0 BODY
2 = 0 BODY
3 = 1 BODY
4 = 1 BODY
5 = 2 BODY
6 = 2 BODY

The average is the same (1 BODY per d6), but results in a more "volitile" range of results, making characters less likely to be "immune" to normal body damage.

Is this also the way you would count "Body" on Flashes, Absorptions, Penetrating attacks and the like?

[Vulcan]

How many GM's will allow a character in a 12DC game, for example, to take "Not vs Body" on his defenses in excess of, say, 15 for a -1 limitation?

There's a reason for that - most of the time it won't be a limitation.

On the other hand, maybe I would allow it - with the understanding that the character would be a push/haymaker magnet to pay for it...

[Vulcan]

Since AP and Pen do not stack their effects...

AP and Penetrating do stack in 5E.

[Chris Goodwin]

Is this also the way you would count "Body" on Flashes, Absorptions, Penetrating attacks and the like?

Sounds to me like it's changing the way of doing "count the BODY", not just for Normal attacks.

[AnotherSkip]

AP and Penetrating do stack in 5E.

Yes and no
ap+pen could be interprted as doubling the bypassing amount when it doesnt work that way in the rules.

[AnotherSkip]

How do we map odd numbers of meters for movement and range? How do we map Turn Mode? How to we work Area Of Effect and Explosion? How do we handle facing? Those are just the simplest questions that I can think of that would have to be added (or, more accurately, added back in) for use with figures.

Or it could just be added to with the Suppliment... Table Top Hero!!!! (it's not just for shrinking guys any more!!!)

[The Main Man]

AP and Penetrating do stack in 5E.
That's not what I meant.

I may have incorrectly worded my point but it is continuously illustrated if you reread the post.

[SteveZilla]

First of all, I am in favor of Killing Attacks being a Power Advantage for Normal Attacks so that damage is more consistent.

So here's an idea regarding Killing Attacks that I had last night:

As it stands:

Armor Piercing halves the target's defenses

Penetrating bypasses a minimum amount of damage past the defenses (BODY for Killing Attacks as they currently are vs. STUN for Normal Attacks)

Since AP and Pen do not stack their effects, what if "Killing Damage" was a Power Advantage that stacks onto them to increase their potency?


With this kind of change:

AP would quarter the opponent's defenses for subtracting BODY damage

Pen would instead have a minimum amount of BODY that bypasses defenses.


I would suggest that "Killing" would be worth +1/2 since it must stack with AP or Pen which effectively makes it a +1 Power Advantage.


Now that brings me to the other half of the equation: R