General Rules Issues [Archive] - Page 9 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Vulcan

Jan 18th, '09, 09:20 AM

You could calculate them all of Real Points?
Works well for dispell (very well even. Those powers that get affected by dispell (extra time and so on) also are vulnerable to it. Gives strong counters, which is usually good) and range, not so much for END (mainly because it's boring, it might not be bad).

You could do range (and area, and possibly even END) by counting dice and ignoring advantages?
Works well. 10d6 EB has 50" range. 10d6 AP still has 50" range. Add a +1 Advantage (More Range) to the system for builds which need that. It's quite affordable.

You coud still calculate AP by leaving out limitations for exactly this purpose?
Additional math, but possible.

See, you are not thinking outside the box enough ;) Why not base some things off different factors than they are now? Don't tell me that the current Range = AP * 5" method is sacrosanct. I probably would not mind the slightest if all ranges in the game changed by a factor 2 (some doubled, others halved), since I have yet to see a power used at max range. Everything after 32" is usually a miss anyway due to range modifiers.

Adjustmentpowers will have to be reworked in 6th anyway (Suppress vs Drain? don't get me started!), which would solve the issue easily. Change costs per d6, done.

And yes, it's a deep change and will have many follow-up-changes. Which in itself is not a problem. "This is done differently" is not inherently worse, it's only different.

Okay, I can see some of the advantages to that. Not sure they counteract the disadvantages, but hey, maybe Steve and co. can figure something out.

Vulcan

Jan 18th, '09, 09:22 AM

Active Points: Optimal Effectiveness given ideal conditions for the power's use.
Real Cost: Average Effectiveness over time.

Neither gives an accurate measure of effectiveness, but both do give a rough idea of effectiveness depending on what your are trying to compare.

I forget who initially suggested these definitions but I think they give a more accurate definition of the terms for how they can be used as tools.

- Christopher Mullins

Yes! That is as perfect a definition for the two terms (as applies to game balancing) as ever I have heard. This belongs in the rules somewhere!

Hugh Neilson

Jan 18th, '09, 09:39 AM

OTOH, some limitations really ought to reduce Active Cost. If Ranged adds to AC, why should No Range not reduce it? Or maybe Ranged should be an adder, too, worth, say, 10 points. "Can Add STR" could also be a 10-point adder, making a basic non-ranged attack where you can't add STR cost 5 points per 1d6, and EBs and HAs each cost + 10 points. This does give some point inflation, but I think it might be worth it.

A better approach, in my view, would be more consistent defaults. For example, perhaps all attacks should be ranged, and re-priced accordingly, so that the No Range and Ranged versions would have the same AP.

My take on "adds STR" is that there should be no such mechanic or advantage. You want more KA, EB, Drain or whatever, buy more. You want it to link to and/or lock out STR, use Lockout and Linked.

Why should a 3d6+1 KA cost exactly the same to a 10 STR character (who can bump it up to 4d6) and a 50 STR character (who can bump it up to 6 1/2 d6)? Let them both use 3d6+1 (which is what they paid for) and, if they want, MPA the attack with a Punch, adding a normal damage attack accordingly.

Alternatively, there should be a mechanic for augmenting any attack power with one or more other attack powers.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 18th, '09, 12:24 PM

My take on "adds STR" is that there should be no such mechanic or advantage. You want more KA, EB, Drain or whatever, buy more. You want it to link to and/or lock out STR, use Lockout and Linked.

Why should a 3d6+1 KA cost exactly the same to a 10 STR character (who can bump it up to 4d6) and a 50 STR character (who can bump it up to 6 1/2 d6)? Let them both use 3d6+1 (which is what they paid for) and, if they want, MPA the attack with a Punch, adding a normal damage attack accordingly.
This would work well in a superheroic campaign, but not so well in fantasy campaigns, where characters expect to be able to add their STR to attacks with swords and such. ...Hmm... Unless melee weapons are bought Linked to STR. That would make sense - after all, the weapons can't do damage unless wielded. This would also automatically limit the addition from STR, since the attack with Linked must be the lesser.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Jan 18th, '09, 12:32 PM

Weapons in fantasy games are typically not purchased with character points, and could certainly have "+X HKA, only 1 DC per 5 STR in excess of Y".

This would resolve the current problem with bows...

Q: Should we change the way Ranged Killing Damage weapons are built?

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 19th, '09, 01:56 AM

Unless melee weapons are bought Linked to STR. That would make sense - after all, the weapons can't do damage unless wielded. This would also automatically limit the addition from STR, since the attack with Linked must be the lesser.
This is what I get from posting late at night... :(

If the weapon has the Linked limitation, it won't of course limit the STR you can add, but rather the reverse: Since the linked attack must be the smaller, it would instead work as a STR Min. You can't use this weapon unless you supply at least as many active points STR as there are active points in the attack.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 19th, '09, 02:21 AM

RDU Neil

Jan 19th, '09, 06:08 AM

A radical idea about END: Powers and STR don't cost END as a default; you only pay END to push or through a limitation.

This will reduce bookkeeping, since you wouldn't spend END nearly as often. It would also make it easier to make END an optional rule.

Possibly END should cost more, e.g. 1 point per (i.e., no more half-point characteristics if COM also goes away or gets a whole-numbered cost).

- Klaus

Not that radical... I posted that house rule a couple of years ago, and play that way.

Essentially... characters buy their END to a ceratin level (70, or 80... whatever) and that becomes the AP limit for that character. They can't have a power that goes beyond that... Ex. Can't have a 16d6EB if you only bought 70 END. Then... every power and ability is essentially 0 END as long as it stays within the AP cap set by the END.

END is then used to Push. (And we've always allowed pushing up to 1/2 the AP of an attack... not just the +10). You have 50 ENd and a 10d6 EB... go 10d6 all day... push to 12d6 and spend 10 END... until you recover, you are at 40 END and can't spend more than 8d6 on you EB... unless you push.

Essentially... END stops being this pain in the butt accounting for every drib and drab of power... and becomes a cap and a "pushing pool" that characters can tap into.

Works EXCEEDINGLY well... making a few characters a bit more expensive (Martial artists, but they get off cheap anyway) and some cheaper... like traditional Energy Blasters.

And yes... there is a metagame mechanic to this... even if a character has powers bought through Foci (a gun type or whatever) they still have to have END that covers the AP of their biggest power. So it actually is an effective "tag" on all characters, 'cause you can look at their END and say, "Ok... that's a 70AP character... or a 120 AP character... that give me an idea about how much they can deal."

The only other side effect I can think of off the top of my head is taht Force Field as a power is not availabe. Everyone uses the Armor power for such defense... SFX whatever they want... slap Non-Persistent on it if they want a FF type effect.

This simple fix changed a TON about how we play... and made things much faster and easier all the way around.

Vulcan

Jan 19th, '09, 12:03 PM

Works EXCEEDINGLY well... making a few characters a bit more expensive (Martial artists, but they get off cheap anyway) and some cheaper... like traditional Energy Blasters.

You mean martial artists get hosed and energy projectors get a free pass for buying something they should be buying anyway.

Martial artists rarely (by the RAW) need more than 4 - 6 END per phase - often far less when averaging in abort phases (Block and Dodge don't cost END, after all). Requiring them to have a 60 END before they can have an Offensive Strike on a 18 STR charcter with 4 Damage classes... well, hoses them pretty thoroughly. They already have to spend a boatload on DEX and SPD just to compete, now they have to spend a large amount on END because of your house rule?

Were I looking to play in your game, I'd look at that rule as 'GM hates martial artists; don't play one.' Probably not your intent, that's just how it comes across to me.

And as such, it's probably not a good idea for a standard rule.

RDU Neil

Jan 19th, '09, 01:31 PM

You mean martial artists get hosed and energy projectors get a free pass for buying something they should be buying anyway.

Martial artists rarely (by the RAW) need more than 4 - 6 END per phase - often far less when averaging in abort phases (Block and Dodge don't cost END, after all). Requiring them to have a 60 END before they can have an Offensive Strike on a 18 STR charcter with 4 Damage classes... well, hoses them pretty thoroughly. They already have to spend a boatload on DEX and SPD just to compete, now they have to spend a large amount on END because of your house rule?

Were I looking to play in your game, I'd look at that rule as 'GM hates martial artists; don't play one.' Probably not your intent, that's just how it comes across to me.

And as such, it's probably not a good idea for a standard rule.

First... I love Martial Artists and they work just fine. As RAW, the single most point efficient and min-maxed type of character is the mini-brick martial artists. With the added damage that doesn't cost END and provides all kinds of combat bonus with the maneuvers, this type of charcter has always gotten off cheap. The fact that they pay a few more points so that there 12d6 attack is at the same level as the 12d6 attack of an EB or anyone else is the same is hardly "hosing" a character type. As it stands, EB class gets hosed totally. The main reason (and this has been verified) that the Elemental Control was created was because Bricks and Martial Artists were so much more effective for the points than Energy Blasters. ECs were meant to give Blasters a way to compete on the same points as other types.

My way, END (which is dirt cheap) costs a few more points... 10 to 20... for Martial Artists... and simply provides an accurate measure of their real power level, rather than have it hidden in stacking effects.

Believe me, I've played this way, and it hoses no one... it only evens things a bit, and provides a very easy "one glace" number to compare maximum power levels plus all the bookkeeping of END is gone... replaced by the super ability to push hard and get real super power at the short term expense.

Believe me... works great... and every established character we had that translated over ended up within a 15 points or so of their original. Don't knock it until you've tried it. :D

The Main Man

Jan 19th, '09, 07:38 PM

I have a campaign where I might try this but I still would rather keep it as a [-n interesting :thumbup:] house rule since it quite blatantly is one.

Lucius

Jan 20th, '09, 08:03 AM

One of the first criticisms I ever heard of Champions, back when it was new, was "a normal man can punch all day without getting tired."

I thought about that and not only agreed but added "a normal man can run all day without getting tired too."

But at least if you loaded him down with as much as he could carry and then made him run, it would wear him out. He gets exhausted in about one minute. Granted, in those long ago days with no Long Term END rules, he was able to get up again quickly.

But now what you people are proposing is a system where, basically, everyone can exert enormous amounts of energy on a continuous basis and keep doing so until they just decide to break for lunch...

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary isn't hungry yet.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 20th, '09, 08:11 AM

But now what you people are proposing is a system where, basically, everyone can exert enormous amounts of energy on a continuous basis and keep doing so until they just decide to break for lunch...
First, very few other systems prevent people from punching and running all day.

Second, it should be possible to have long-term endurance rules under systems like the ones proposed. E.g. on the lines of: "If you use a power at 75%+ of full power every turn, you lose 1 long-term END per minute. If you use the power at 50-74%, you lose 1 long-term END per 10 minutes. If you use the power at 25-49%, you lose 1 long-term END per hour." Or some such.

- Klaus

Lucius

Jan 20th, '09, 08:26 AM

SteveZilla

Jan 20th, '09, 09:05 AM

How to get rid of advantage stacking without making the system so complicated that nobody can do the math anymore:

[snip]

The part about "Advantage Stacking" got me to thinking... How about this change for Advantages:

Advantage Stacking:

Advantages now affect each other after the most expensive Advantage, not just the base power. The net effect is that for powers with two or less Advantages there is no change, but for each Advantage added past that, it not only adds its own cost to the power, but makes all the other advantages more expensive as well.

Now: 10d6 EB + AP(+.5) + Pen(+.5) + Autofire(5 Shots; +.5) = 50 + 25 + 25 + 25 = 125 Active Points.

Proposed: 10d6 EB + AP(+.5) + Pen(+.5) + Autofire(5 Shots; +.5) = 50 + 25 + (25+12.5) + (25+12.5) = 150 Active Points.

Now: 1 pip RKA + AP(+.5) + AP(+.5) + AP(+.5) + AP(+.5) + AP(+.5) + AP(+.5) + PEN(+.5) + PEN(+.5) + PEN(+.5) + PEN(+.5) + PEN(+.5) + PEN(+.5) + AoE: Hex(+.5) + Autofire(5 shots; +1.5) + Increased Max Range(x5x5x5x5=x625; +1) + No Range Modifier(+.5) + Variable Special Effects(+.5) + Zero END(+1)
= 5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 7.5 + 5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 5 = 60 Active Points

Proposed:
1 pip RKA = 5
+ Autofire(5 shots; +1.5)(surcharge is included) = 7.5 = +12.5
+ AP(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ AP(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ AP(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ AP(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ AP(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ AP(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ PEN(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ PEN(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ PEN(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ PEN(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ PEN(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ PEN(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ AoE: Hex(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ Increased Max Range(x625; +1) = 5 + (5 * 8.5) = +47.5
+ No Range Modifier(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ Variable Special Effects(+.5) = 2.5 + (2.5 * 9) = +25
+ Zero END(+1) = 5 + (5 * 8.5) = +47.5

... making a grand total of this munchkin favorite: 482 Active Points!

Also, it would do away with Active Points. Real points show much better now how effective a power is.

I disagree. In my experience (and opinion), Active Points and Real Points are both needed to have a reasonable gauge of the Power. While AP tells of the total power, RP as compared to the AP tells how easily that power can be brought to bear. A 15 Real Point Thermonuclear Device is not equal in effectiveness to a 1d6 RKA without Limitations despite both having the same Real Cost.

SteveZilla

Jan 20th, '09, 09:25 AM

Not that radical... I posted that house rule a couple of years ago, and play that way.

Essentially... characters buy their END to a ceratin level (70, or 80... whatever) and that becomes the AP limit for that character. They can't have a power that goes beyond that... Ex. Can't have a 16d6EB if you only bought 70 END. Then... every power and ability is essentially 0 END as long as it stays within the AP cap set by the END.

END is then used to Push. (And we've always allowed pushing up to 1/2 the AP of an attack... not just the +10). You have 50 ENd and a 10d6 EB... go 10d6 all day... push to 12d6 and spend 10 END... until you recover, you are at 40 END and can't spend more than 8d6 on you EB... unless you push.

Essentially... END stops being this pain in the butt accounting for every drib and drab of power... and becomes a cap and a "pushing pool" that characters can tap into.

Works EXCEEDINGLY well... making a few characters a bit more expensive (Martial artists, but they get off cheap anyway) and some cheaper... like traditional Energy Blasters.

And yes... there is a metagame mechanic to this... even if a character has powers bought through Foci (a gun type or whatever) they still have to have END that covers the AP of their biggest power. So it actually is an effective "tag" on all characters, 'cause you can look at their END and say, "Ok... that's a 70AP character... or a 120 AP character... that give me an idea about how much they can deal."

Did you have to restrict/ban Negative Adjustment Powers that target END? A 12d6 Suppress END would seem to be a great way to shut down a character then. :ugly: Or a Transfer END to END? They can use less of their powers, I can Push more often! :eg:

RDU Neil

Jan 20th, '09, 12:03 PM

Did you have to restrict/ban Negative Adjustment Powers that target END? A 12d6 Suppress END would seem to be a great way to shut down a character then. :ugly: Or a Transfer END to END? They can use less of their powers, I can Push more often! :eg:

Very good question. I can honestly say it has never come up. (Play style of the group most likely.) That being said, I'm both fascinated and concerned about how it would play out.

I think it has a legitimate place in the game (and a neat way to incapacitate beyond Stun and Body) but could be abused. I actually really like the idea of "I drink your milkshake!" I take your END and can now use it for more raw power of my own. Very clean and elegant.

On the idea of it really hurting the other player... I don't see it any differently than now. END is cheap... get your END drained and you can't use your powers. Actually... this idea actually makes the Advantage of Reduced END Cost mean something again. "Yes, you have sucked my power, but I can still use my laser vision!"

If such attacks became prevalent, I'd expect players to begin buying defenses for them... either Reduced END cost or Power Def.

It is a different effect in some ways, but I don't see it as being any worse than Drains vs. END currently. Do you?

Vulcan

Jan 20th, '09, 12:23 PM

First... I love Martial Artists and they work just fine. As RAW, the single most point efficient and min-maxed type of character is the mini-brick martial artists. With the added damage that doesn't cost END and provides all kinds of combat bonus with the maneuvers, this type of charcter has always gotten off cheap.

With a CON score to match, no doubt.

Now how about my 10 STR, 15 CON (and 30 END) 'Ancient Master' with 8 Damage Classs? Now I've got to dump (and it is a dump, the points are pretty thoroughly wasted from a RAW standpoint) another 20 points into END to be able to use his Offensive Strike. Even though the special effect isn't about brute force and energy expended, it's all about technique.

The fact that they pay a few more points so that there 12d6 attack is at the same level as the 12d6 attack of an EB or anyone else is the same is hardly "hosing" a character type. As it stands, EB class gets hosed totally. The main reason (and this has been verified) that the Elemental Control was created was because Bricks and Martial Artists were so much more effective for the points than Energy Blasters. ECs were meant to give Blasters a way to compete on the same points as other types.

So now that you've 'fixed' martial artists (in the same way one 'fixes' a dog, in my opinion), are you going to yank power frameworks to bring the EB's back in line?

My way, END (which is dirt cheap) costs a few more points... 10 to 20... for Martial Artists... and simply provides an accurate measure of their real power level, rather than have it hidden in stacking effects.

10-20 points is a signigicant amount, even in a 350 point game. It's the difference betwen 4 SPD (and a MA becoming either a stain on the wall or wasting whole combats aborting continuously) and a 6 SPD (where he at least has a fighting change).

It's an even bigger amount if the GM plays 'lower powered' games with fewer points.

Believe me, I've played this way, and it hoses no one... it only evens things a bit, and provides a very easy "one glace" number to compare maximum power levels plus all the bookkeeping of END is gone... replaced by the super ability to push hard and get real super power at the short term expense.

I believe that should read "Believe me, I've played this way, and it hoses no one in my games..."

But not everyone uses your style of gaming.

Believe me... works great... and every established character we had that translated over ended up within a 15 points or so of their original. Don't knock it until you've tried it. :D

I would. But my 'competitive with the campaing power level' martial artists don't have the 20 points to spare to do so. At least, not without totally crippling some vital aspect of the character. Say...

4 MA Damage Classes - at which point not only do I not need all the END, but I can't hurt any non-normal NPC's. :rolleyes:

DCV Skill Levels - without which the character is paste on the wall next combat. :help:

SPD - see my statement above.

DEX - Without which my entire combat consists of 'I Abort to dodge when the the NPC with a higher DEX targets me.

None of which are particularly fun to play, in my opinion.

In short, your rule would cripple an entire archetype - or at least, the 'pure' version of the archetype. SO, I don't think it's a particularly good idea for the RAW.

It is a different effect in some ways, but I don't see it as being any worse than Drains vs. END currently. Do you?

At least in the RAW I can still burn STUN when I'm out of END. By your rules, 0 END = 0 Power. And now EB with a FF can't turn it on anymore, and gets killed by the next attack to hit! So it's not just Martial Artists who get screwed here, it's also anyone with defenses that cost END to use...

Hugh Neilson

Jan 21st, '09, 05:21 AM

First, very few other systems prevent people from punching and running all day.

Very true. I don't want Hero to be "every other system", though. I'd like to see base movement be maintainable, but NOT be an all-out run. A brisk walk that the typical person can maintain for an extended period would be the maximum normal human movement. If you double it for noncombat, THAT would be a "run" and should cost extra END.

Second, it should be possible to have long-term endurance rules under systems like the ones proposed. E.g. on the lines of: "If you use a power at 75%+ of full power every turn, you lose 1 long-term END per minute. If you use the power at 50-74%, you lose 1 long-term END per 10 minutes. If you use the power at 25-49%, you lose 1 long-term END per hour." Or some such.

While this would resolve the "keeps going in perpetuity" issue, it replaces one bookkeeping issue with another. Is this going to be any easier to track than the current END rules? I don't think so - it actually adds a step since I need to track my END each phase to add up what I spent in the turn (same work as the current rules) and then figure that as a percentage and deduct my LTE.

That assumes, of course, that there's more LTE loss than 1 per minute - that allows the RDUNeil approach characters to fight for an hour or so without running out of END.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 21st, '09, 05:26 AM

MOVEMENT: I'd like to see a more open system for combining modes of movement. For example, assume my character has 20" Running and 10" Swimming. He wants to run 2" into a body of water, dive in (too deep to run at that point), swim 2" to the other side, and run out when the depth is back to a level permitting this.

Presently, he has to make a 2" Running half move and a 2" Swimming half move. Next phase, he can run out of the water. But he's only used 10% of his running and 20% of his Swimming in that first phase - why should that be a whole phase?

I'd like to see a rule (maybe an optional one) allowing for pro rating movement in a half phase. My sample character would run 2" (10% of a full move), swim 2" (20% of a full move) and be able to move another 20% of a full move (4" running) as a half phase action.

Or he could run 5", then Leap 1/4 of his usual leaping distance across a space as a single half move.

I'd liken this to the optional Growth accounting for BOD loss on a proportionate basis, rather than losing the added Growth BOD first. Of course, it would be usable by a much greater proportion of characters. It seems a good candidate for a "core optional rule" - greater options and verisimilitude, at the cost of extra math.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 21st, '09, 05:36 AM

Very good question. I can honestly say it has never come up. (Play style of the group most likely.) That being said, I'm both fascinated and concerned about how it would play out.

I think it has a legitimate place in the game (and a neat way to incapacitate beyond Stun and Body) but could be abused. I actually really like the idea of "I drink your milkshake!" I take your END and can now use it for more raw power of my own. Very clean and elegant.

On the idea of it really hurting the other player... I don't see it any differently than now. END is cheap... get your END drained and you can't use your powers. Actually... this idea actually makes the Advantage of Reduced END Cost mean something again. "Yes, you have sucked my power, but I can still use my laser vision!"

If such attacks became prevalent, I'd expect players to begin buying defenses for them... either Reduced END cost or Power Def.

It is a different effect in some ways, but I don't see it as being any worse than Drains vs. END currently. Do you?

Without working the math, yes I think this is much more effective than a standard drain vs END. As noted already, I can still burn STUN for END if my END is drained. Under your system, an END drain effectively converts to a drain against all powers that require END to use.

Let's assume we have an EP with a 12d6 EB (6 END) and a +15/+15 Force Field (3 END). In a typical phase, he spends 9 END, +1 to move. He's hit with an END Suppress. 12d6 suppresses 84 END, so all his END is suppressed.

In a regular game, he can persevere, at the cost of 5d6 STUN (average roll 17.5). That hurts, but if his opponent had hit him with a standard attack instead, he likely would have taken similar STUN damage after defenses.

Under your rules, he can't attack, he can't move and his force field shuts down. He can't retaliate and one hit from an opponent's regular attack will KO him, likely hospitalize him as well.

That seems a pretty significant change to me.

RDU, how does your system function when a character recovers from being knocked out with, say, 5 STUN, then takes a recovery so he has 17 STUN and 17 END? Under the normal rules, he can act for a couple of phases at full power, rejoining the fight. Would he be able to use his full powers with only 17 END under your system (ie he's better off than under the normal rules since he won't quickly run out of END) or is he forced to reduce his powers to accommodate his reduced EDN (ie he's worse off than the normal rules)?

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 21st, '09, 06:25 AM

Kdansky

Jan 21st, '09, 09:24 AM

Vulcan, the problem is not the house rule, it's your character build and/or cost of Strength. Why would you ever want 15 STR and 8 Martial DCs? 55 STR and 0 DCs give you the same damage and cost significantly less points (+40 STR, +8d6, +8 REC, +8 PD, +20 STUN for 40 points vs 32 points for 8d6). Or rather, it's Strength being underpriced. Essentially a character with STR instead of MDC will cream the MDC character 9 times out of 10 (+20 stun and +8 PD (and +4 REC after selling 4 back for those 8 points to break even) at identical damage levels? You don't even stand a chance). There is also no reason not to have a high CON, since STUN/ED/REC/END is useful for any character and it's dirt cheap.

You can argue "SFX" and "Character Concept" all day long, but the system does not favour ALL concepts. Low STR and low CON are totally inefficient. If you build those characters, don't be surprised if they are just not packing as much punch as the rest.

Also, we should really stop with the "Frameworks are an Energyprojector-thing". They are not. About 90% of all PCs and NPCs I ever wrote have a Framework. About one in twenty could be classified as EP.

The house rule seems very interesting, except for Drain/Transfer/Suppress getting incredibly good against END. Drain someone 10 END and suddenly they have to either push *every* attack or go down to 10d6. Your END drain is not only an END drain, it's also an attack power drain. It would need some reworking, but the houserule is still sweet.

BlackSword

Jan 21st, '09, 09:44 AM

Very good question. I can honestly say it has never come up. (Play style of the group most likely.) That being said, I'm both fascinated and concerned about how it would play out.
How does the system work with Speedsters? When I played a speedster the END burn was one of my limiting factors. Overall I like the idea, and I think it works great for most genres.

I do have one game that has power suits and all of the weapons and some suit functions run off an END reserve, in that instance I like keeping track of END because it can force players into some resource management, but I suppose it could also be done with a variation on charges as well.

Vulcan

Jan 21st, '09, 01:36 PM

Vulcan, the problem is not the house rule, it's your character build and/or cost of Strength. Why would you ever want 15 STR and 8 Martial DCs?

I don't know, perhaps my character's CONCEPT?

My ancient master CANNOT LIFT A BATTLESHIP. He cannot throw a boulder 2 miles. But through raw training and technique he can still shatter the boulder with a sharp tap.

55 STR and 0 DCs give you the same damage and cost significantly less points (+40 STR, +8d6, +8 REC, +8 PD, +20 STUN for 40 points vs 32 points for 8d6). Or rather, it's Strength being underpriced. Essentially a character with STR instead of MDC will cream the MDC character 9 times out of 10 (+20 stun and +8 PD (and +4 REC after selling 4 back for those 8 points to break even) at identical damage levels? You don't even stand a chance). There is also no reason not to have a high CON, since STUN/ED/REC/END is useful for any character and it's dirt cheap.

You can argue "SFX" and "Character Concept" all day long, but the system does not favour ALL concepts. Low STR and low CON are totally inefficient. If you build those characters, don't be surprised if they are just not packing as much punch as the rest.

So in your games, with that house rule that hoses those concepts EVEN MORE, I'll go ahead and play the brick (who will likely have more than enough END just from his CON) or Energy Projector (who I also tend to give very high CONs to help with the massive END cost EP's tend to have).

Your game, your house rule. But if a rule TOTALLY WRECKS concepts, then it does not belong in a game that advertises itself as being able to build any concept.

Sure, there are concepts that HEROS does not do well. I just don't think we should add to them with this rule.

Also, we should really stop with the "Frameworks are an Energy projector-thing". They are not. About 90% of all PCs and NPCs I ever wrote have a Framework. About one in twenty could be classified as EP.

Fair enough, I tend to use them a lot on charcters who are not heavily dependant upon Characteristics and skills - that is, everyone but pure martial artists and bricks (and the demi-brick too, I suppose).

The house rule seems very interesting, except for Drain/Transfer/Suppress getting incredibly good against END. Drain someone 10 END and suddenly they have to either push *every* attack or go down to 10d6. Your END drain is not only an END drain, it's also an attack power drain. It would need some reworking, but the houserule is still sweet.

Effectively, END becomes a 'hidden EC' on every character - drain END, drain ALL. This is not a good thing, in my opinion.

Kdansky

Jan 21st, '09, 02:22 PM

You did not get my point:

This concept: "Low Strength, Low CON, Martial Artist" is already wrecked in the current rules.

The current rules put a penalty of roughly 4 REC, 20 STUN, 8 PD (that would be an equivalent of 36 character points) on 8 Martial DC vs 40 Strength. That house rule puts a penalty of about 20 points onto that concept (the extra 40 END needed). That means the current rules do twice as much "damage" to that concept than that house rule would. That houserule is not the problem. Strength is.

And there is an easy way around the "My character is not supposed to be strong" problem:

+30 Strength, No Lifting/Throwing (-0)
SFX: "I know where and how to apply it, but I'm not superman."

5th is not so much a generic toolbox as it is a fourcolour toolbox. Figureds and ECs are incredibly Fourcolour and result in typical concepts like "Fireman: EC Fire with Flight, FF, EB. But quite frankly, that's a horrible concept everywhere except Fourcolour, because it's totally clichée in any other setting. Having "same SFX = point discount" in the system favours certain concepts. "Low Characteristics" is very unfavoured, as is "lots of SFX", as is "timid Mentalist" (low EGO? unfeasible), as is "Clumsy, but efficient fighter" (low DEX + Combatlevels is totally point-inefficient) or "Berserker" (Self only Aid costs more than it's worth). There are a few more concepts which work badly, but most of those will be fixed when Figureds get eliminated. That is one of the main reasons why figureds should go: Better Toolbox.

Vulcan

Jan 21st, '09, 03:21 PM

You did not get my point:

This concept: "Low Strength, Low CON, Martial Artist" is already wrecked in the current rules.

Interesting that you should say that, given that I play them regularly and quite sucessfully.

So I don't have the extra REC, PD, or STUN. Big deal :rolleyes:. Those are for bricks, who shrug off the damage. My defense is "NO BE THERE!"

And there is an easy way around the "My character is not supposed to be strong" problem:

+30 Strength, No Lifting/Throwing (-0)
SFX: "I know where and how to apply it, but I'm not superman."

But the frail ancient master still has no business having a 40 STR for any purpose. Martial Arts Damage Classes, on the other hand, are perfect for the concept.

5th is not so much a generic toolbox as it is a fourcolour toolbox. Figureds and ECs are incredibly Fourcolour and result in typical concepts like "Fireman: EC Fire with Flight, FF, EB. But quite frankly, that's a horrible concept everywhere except Fourcolour, because it's totally clichée in any other setting. Having "same SFX = point discount" in the system favours certain concepts. "Low Characteristics" is very unfavoured, as is "lots of SFX"

Kinda with you on these two. Not totally, they can still be done, but I grant you that they are not generally as point-efficient as many other concepts.

as is "timid Mentalist" (low EGO? unfeasible)

This one is actually pretty easy to do. Try low PRE, and a Vulnerability to PRE attacks. :D The high EGO matters quite a bit less that way.

as is "Clumsy, but efficient fighter" (low DEX + Combatlevels is totally point-inefficient)

I prefer to call it 'clumsy but effective fighter' - the antithesis of the combat thief.

But I grant you it is less point-efficient than the 'high-DEX' fighter.

or "Berserker" (Self only Aid costs more than it's worth).

That's why I buy 'STR (or skill levels, or whatever), only while enraged' (exact limitation based on how often the character goes enraged). Or to duplicate the d20 'controlled' rage, I'd make it 'STR, 2 (or more) charges continuing 1 turn...'

There are a few more concepts which work badly, but most of those will be fixed when Figureds get eliminated. That is one of the main reasons why figureds should go: Better Toolbox.

Of course, your house rule means that Drain END becomes the greatest super-power of all time...:straight:

I suppose the difference between us, Kdansky, is that I am willing to subordinate character efficiency for concept, if I think the concept is fun. Besides, I know enough about the system now to make most concepts work. Maybe not as well as a pure 'rules have been raped, brutalized, and left for dead' brick, but well enough to make them effective enough to enjoy playing.

steamteck

Jan 21st, '09, 05:16 PM

I suppose the difference between us, Kdansky, is that I am willing to subordinate character efficiency for concept, if I think the concept is fun. Besides, I know enough about the system now to make most concepts work. Maybe not as well as a pure 'rules have been raped, brutalized, and left for dead' brick, but well enough to make them effective enough to enjoy playing.

Well said.

nexus

Jan 21st, '09, 05:26 PM

Vulcan

Jan 21st, '09, 05:57 PM

Well said.

Repped.

Thanks for the backup, guys! :thumbup:

AnotherSkip

Jan 21st, '09, 06:44 PM

But the frail ancient master still has no business having a 40 STR for any purpose. Martial Arts Damage Classes, on the other hand, are perfect for the concept.

This one is actually pretty easy to do. Try low PRE, and a Vulnerability to PRE attacks. :D The high EGO matters quite a bit less that way.

Erm the Ego still defends against Pre attacks.

MDC's = Str for Damage purposes.

:help:

Vulcan

Jan 21st, '09, 07:39 PM

Erm the Ego still defends against Pre attacks.

Sure, but taking twice the effect from PRE attacks knocks that back quite a bit.

nexus

Jan 21st, '09, 08:05 PM

Sure, but taking twice the effect from PRE attacks knocks that back quite a bit.

Have I mentioned (recently...) that I really think it needs to be one or the other (Ego or Pre) all the time not which ever is higher? Personally, I think it should be Ego since it represents willpower/bravery/drive in pretty much every other situation. It also gives it something to do in games with few or no mental powers Presence has all the Interaction skills and making Pre attacks.

AmadanNaBriona

Jan 21st, '09, 09:42 PM

Erm the Ego still defends against Pre attacks.

MDC's = Str for Damage purposes.

:help:

Martial Damage classes also add to martial NND's, the BASE damage of a martial KA, and Martial Flashes, none of which are affected by STR

(Says the guy whose played a Batmannish Gadgeteer/Martial Artist with NCM for years as the leader of a PRIMUS superteam)

Kdansky

Jan 22nd, '09, 01:18 AM

I cringe everytime when my idea for a character costs 100 points and there is a slightly different SFX which would make the character 20 points cheaper while getting stronger. Those are the things that I really want to see changed. SFX should never, ever dictate point-efficiency.

Markdoc

Jan 22nd, '09, 03:07 AM

First, very few other systems prevent people from punching and running all day.

Second, it should be possible to have long-term endurance rules under systems like the ones proposed. E.g. on the lines of: "If you use a power at 75%+ of full power every turn, you lose 1 long-term END per minute. If you use the power at 50-74%, you lose 1 long-term END per 10 minutes. If you use the power at 25-49%, you lose 1 long-term END per hour." Or some such.

- Klaus

With the exception that I use END usage vs REC to calculate LTE, this is basically what I am doing in my current game. I decided to dump END use (except for Pushing) and it has materially speeded up play, without any clear negatives. If we are looking at simplifying the game in 6E, this idea should be seriously considered, IMO - it's one of the things which certainly makes it simpler to bring in new players and saves some time in play even with experienced players.

The real reason for END in the original game was, I think to do two things:
1) stop characters from running multiple powers at full strength, all the time
2) to simulate those examples in the source material where using powers clearly tired the character out.

I think we could easily switch to a system where all powers have 0 END by default and using END is a limitation: it is only employed to powers that are unusually tiring to employ. This actually matches the source material better, since most characters in the source material don't actually seem to have END usage problems - but it allows creation of characters who do. That takes care of point #2

As for gamability concerns, if the EC goes away (and there seems to be fairly strong support for this, reading the thread about frameworks), then #1 becomes a non-issue, since active points in VPP and MP control the "all the powers, all the time" problem. In addition, this gives a small bonus to those who buy powers "straight" since they can use them all at the same time, by default.

This would have several flow-on effects.
A) The LTE rules could be easily configured using ratios of active points vs REC - characters who wanted "untiring" characters could buy extra REC instead of reduced END (with the limitation that it only counts vs LTE, if they want)

B) As already noted, it would simplify the armour/forcefield problem: just have a single resistant defence power which can be defined as a forcefield, armour or really tough skin. The sidebar examples could show how to re-create the current powers (costs END, focus and IPE, respectively). That saves space and some confusion over three similar powers that are currently costed differently.

C) It would also remove the problem that some advantages cost END and some don't, simplifying character creation slightly.

D) We remove the "powers that cost END are visible" issue which has caused so much discussion and replace it with the rule that all powers which directly affect other people/things or other people's powers are visible. Thus, attacks and defences would be inherently visible - but movement and sensory powers would not normally be. Simpler to understand and implement, IMO.

E) Charges become a simple limitation. High numbers of charges cease being an advantage, as is the case now, they simply become a special effect "lots of charges".

That's probably about it: END becomes a something that only a few characters use, a way of monitoring long term activity and something used for Pushing. Changes in character design would be minimal (existing characters with reduced END would simply gain a few points back) and you would lose nothing in terms of options, but you'd reap a benefit in terms of simplifying gameplay (big plus, to my mind).

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jan 22nd, '09, 03:14 AM

Have I mentioned (recently...) that I really think it needs to be one or the other (Ego or Pre) all the time not which ever is higher? Personally, I think it should be Ego since it represents willpower/bravery/drive in pretty much every other situation. It also gives it something to do in games with few or no mental powers Presence has all the Interaction skills and making Pre attacks.

I like this idea: in many games, EGO sees very little use.

cheers, Mark

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 22nd, '09, 04:22 AM

This concept: "Low Strength, Low CON, Martial Artist" is already wrecked in the current rules.

The current rules put a penalty of roughly 4 REC, 20 STUN, 8 PD (that would be an equivalent of 36 character points) on 8 Martial DC vs 40 Strength.
Except that Martial DCs don't cost END. Buying "0 END" on 40 STR costs 20 points.

I do agree that STR gives way too much for its cost, but MDCs are also pretty cheap.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 22nd, '09, 04:25 AM

I really think it needs to be one or the other (Ego or Pre) all the time not which ever is higher? Personally, I think it should be Ego since it represents willpower/bravery/drive in pretty much every other situation. It also gives it something to do in games with few or no mental powers Presence has all the Interaction skills and making Pre attacks.
I, OTOH, think it should be PRE and that EGO be made an optional characteristic for games with mental powers only. In games w/o mental powers, EGO is much to expensive, even if it defends against PRE attacks.

Either that or split EGO into Psyche (mental attack/defense) and Will (resistance to PRE attacks, etc.). Psyche would then be optional.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 22nd, '09, 04:33 AM

Markdoc, I agree 100% with your END ideas (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1768292&postcount=2038). I would have repped you, but must spread it around first.

With such a chance, I think the general power levels should be a little lower, but Pushing become more normal. E.g. if 12d6 attacks are the norm now, make that 10d6 but encourage Pushing by up to 50%.

I also think END should cost double what it does now (gets rid of that pesky half-point cost) and be applied to 1 END per 5 points 'pushed'. Using your 10d6 EB at full boost (15d6) would then cost 5 END.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Jan 22nd, '09, 04:36 AM

You did not get my point:

This concept: "Low Strength, Low CON, Martial Artist" is already wrecked in the current rules.

The current rules put a penalty of roughly 4 REC, 20 STUN, 8 PD (that would be an equivalent of 36 character points) on 8 Martial DC vs 40 Strength. That house rule puts a penalty of about 20 points onto that concept (the extra 40 END needed). That means the current rules do twice as much "damage" to that concept than that house rule would. That houserule is not the problem. Strength is.

In my experience, the martial artist is quite effective based on DC's and dodging rather than STR and defenses/stun/rec. In any case, Steve proposes to remove figured characteristics entirely in 6e, which would eliminate those bonuses you cite. I don't know that this will happen, but it seems likely the benefits of figured's derived from STR will be reduced or removed in 6e. Why adopt a new rule that disadvantages the MA after doing that?

Sure, but taking twice the effect from PRE attacks knocks that back quite a bit.

2x from anything tends to mean the character is out of the fight when that "anything" shows up. A 35 defense character in a 12 DC game (extreme, in my view) taking 84, rather than 42, points from each hit from his vulnerability is losing 49, rather than 7, STUN per hit. He's almost certainly stunned by the first shot. The second should KO him before he recovers from being stunned.

Have I mentioned (recently...) that I really think it needs to be one or the other (Ego or Pre) all the time not which ever is higher? Personally, I think it should be Ego since it represents willpower/bravery/drive in pretty much every other situation. It also gives it something to do in games with few or no mental powers Presence has all the Interaction skills and making Pre attacks.

I agree 100%. First, the resistance should be a single stat, not two. Second, EGO is more appropriate than PRE - make PRE impressiveness and EGO defense against that impressiveness and we can have a character who is very impressive, but also easily impressed. Sounds like a powerful Super raised as a farmboy.

Kdansky

Jan 22nd, '09, 05:20 AM

Except that Martial DCs don't cost END. Buying "0 END" on 40 STR costs 20 points.

I do agree that STR gives way too much for its cost, but MDCs are also pretty cheap.

- Klaus

I missed that one. Now it's even more clear why a house rule concerning END would have a huge impact on a character which indirectly bought his main power to 0END. I still cannot blame the house rule.

And considering PRE: That is exactly what happened. The menalist had x1.5 effect from fear-based PRE-attacks which meant he either still shrugged them off (30 EGO gives you a big threshold, even against 150% PRE), often as easy or easier than the other characters (15 defenses vs 100% compared to 30 vs 150% has a break point). In the end, we decided to go with "EGO, does not Defend against PRE Attacks -1/4". Of course, by RAW such EGO would not give you ECV, since it does not limit the CV. Now that is silly and another great demonstration how messed up figureds are. You essentially cannot limit your EGO as a mentalist without gimping yourself.

RDU Neil

Jan 22nd, '09, 09:03 AM

Whoa... I just talked about a house rule and it is like I killed somebody's cat or something. :eek:

Anyway... first... the driver for me creating the house rule was 1) we hated the bookkeeping of END, and found it to be unfun and not ver good at simulating the genre, 2) we did enjoy pushing and going into Stun when at low END because it was dramatic and exciting in game play, 3) we had tons of experience in finding that certain popular builds (MAs and mini-bricks and such) were essentially cheaper and more efficient than other builds, primarily because their concepts and SFX allowed for cheaper and more efficient builds... essentially hiding their true effectiveness because their attacks were stacked effect, not a single attack.

I came up with the idea that attempted to fix all of these. Remove the pedantic bookkeeping, speed up combat, allow for super pushing and exhausting a character with big power layouts, and provide a slightly more accurate "one glance" power rating that allowed for easy comparison.

Now, I never posted this house rule here stating it should become THE way Hero is done. I was merely replying to Klaus (I think) in saying that his suggestion was not so far fetched, and in fact did work in actual play, not just theoretical builds.

As to some of the comments... I did state that FF was no longer a power option. Armor was the power of choice... so there was no worry about defensive powers having END costs. (Force Wall doesn't count as it isn't a defense power as much as a power that lets you create an object... a wall... that can get in the way of an attack... but does not act like any other defensive power.) If you wanted the SFX of a FF for a character, buy Armor and put Non-Persistant on it and define it as "glowing energy" and good to go.

For the draining part... as stated before, it never ever came up in actual play. What did happen is that characters who pushed or ran low on END took actions to recover. The "Cover me, I'm sucking wind for a bit here" was common. The Knockout scenario did happen... and most just took some extra recovery actions before rejoining the fray. The point there, once they had at least 1 or 2 END... common actions were fine (move, block, dodge) and they could maneuver until they could take full recoveries and get back into fighting form. There were cool dramatic moments of "I'm not up to full power, but my team needs me" decisions to go back in without all their END. Honestly, it never came up in any way that hosed the players.

I think, incidentally, that one of the side effects of END being bought up on all characters... suddenly it was a lot harder to have it run out (unless knocked unconcious) and no one was bothered by the fact the a character going unconscious was a bit more dangerous now.

As for slightly more cost for some, slightly less for others... well... points were easily given to the couple who needed it.

Essentially... it isn't perfect... but the plusses far outweighed the negatives. Simplified END... turning END into a fun stat to use as a power boost for every character... a nice quick measure of character power levels... a bit of a cost balancing... with only some theoretical downsides really. None that ever came out in game play.

Again... I'm not in any way saying MY way of using END is the way 6th Edition should be... just that there are very "out of the box" ways of interpreting END that should be considered when looking at 6th as inspiration or ideas for interpreting Hero.

Finally... philosophically... back when I did this change, there was a lot of discussion on these boards about Hero and making it approachable for some. The fact that the default status of Hero is a complicated, time consuming bookkeeping element like END is very counter intuitive. END should be something that advanced character building can use to simulate certain things and take on that burden for reduced cost... but instead, the default is that new players build ineffective characters that are a drudge to play until they figure out to buy 0 End on all their regular powers and such. The default should be 0 END and with the ability to add complexity as desired... not complexity that requires advanced play skills and experience to simplify.

(Now noting that MarkDoc has posted something similar to this... to which I totally agree, obviously.)

The Main Man

Jan 22nd, '09, 12:24 PM

I kinda like MarkDoc's points on END.

I personally have never really found END to be too tedious but some of my players have.

If it speeds up gameplay (and I see it; it adds up) without negatively affecting the game then I am all for it.

Here's some additional thoughts I have on that:

1) What if a character's CON was the maximum output in a single phase?

If a character used too much then they are Fatigued, which would function similarly to being Stunned except that they would default to taking a Recovery.

While there would be no actual END to use REC for, the key is still to take a Recovery Action, and if they get bashed by the opponent during that phase then they must take their next phase until they get their Recovery.

2) Pushing could become a function of EGO rolls. Or CON Rolls. One of the two.

Vulcan

Jan 22nd, '09, 12:56 PM

With the exception that I use END usage vs REC to calculate LTE, this is basically what I am doing in my current game. I decided to dump END use (except for Pushing) and it has materially speeded up play, without any clear negatives. If we are looking at simplifying the game in 6E, this idea should be seriously considered, IMO - it's one of the things which certainly makes it simpler to bring in new players and saves some time in play even with experienced players.

The real reason for END in the original game was, I think to do two things:
1) stop characters from running multiple powers at full strength, all the time
2) to simulate those examples in the source material where using powers clearly tired the character out.

I think we could easily switch to a system where all powers have 0 END by default and using END is a limitation: it is only employed to powers that are unusually tiring to employ. This actually matches the source material better, since most characters in the source material don't actually seem to have END usage problems - but it allows creation of characters who do. That takes care of point #2

As for gamability concerns, if the EC goes away (and there seems to be fairly strong support for this, reading the thread about frameworks), then #1 becomes a non-issue, since active points in VPP and MP control the "all the powers, all the time" problem. In addition, this gives a small bonus to those who buy powers "straight" since they can use them all at the same time, by default.

This would have several flow-on effects.
A) The LTE rules could be easily configured using ratios of active points vs REC - characters who wanted "untiring" characters could buy extra REC instead of reduced END (with the limitation that it only counts vs LTE, if they want)

B) As already noted, it would simplify the armour/forcefield problem: just have a single resistant defence power which can be defined as a forcefield, armour or really tough skin. The sidebar examples could show how to re-create the current powers (costs END, focus and IPE, respectively). That saves space and some confusion over three similar powers that are currently costed differently.

C) It would also remove the problem that some advantages cost END and some don't, simplifying character creation slightly.

D) We remove the "powers that cost END are visible" issue which has caused so much discussion and replace it with the rule that all powers which directly affect other people/things or other people's powers are visible. Thus, attacks and defences would be inherently visible - but movement and sensory powers would not normally be. Simpler to understand and implement, IMO.

E) Charges become a simple limitation. High numbers of charges cease being an advantage, as is the case now, they simply become a side effect "lots of charges".

That's probably about it: END becomes a something that only a few characters use, a way of monitoring long term activity and something used for Pushing. Changes in character design would be minimal (existing characters with reduced END would simply gain a few points back) and you would lose nothing in terms of options, but you'd reap a benefit in terms of simplifying gameplay (big plus, to my mind).

cheers, Mark

For the sake of simplifying the game, this is a darn good idea. I think that on a personal level I'd prefer to leave END and END use alone, but this is probably a better option for the RAW.

Vulcan

Jan 22nd, '09, 01:00 PM

2x from anything tends to mean the character is out of the fight when that "anything" shows up. A 35 defense character in a 12 DC game (extreme, in my view) taking 84, rather than 42, points from each hit from his vulnerability is losing 49, rather than 7, STUN per hit. He's almost certainly stunned by the first shot. The second should KO him before he recovers from being stunned.

No, he won't take ANY STUN or be stunned at all; because I was refering to PRE attacks...

My suggestion was made in response to someone claiming the 'timid mentalist' couldn't be done because EGO worked against PRE attacks. I was just pointing out that a vulnerability to PRE attacks makes the 'timid mentalist' work.

Edit: Well, kinda work. A 30 EGO and x2 effect from PRE attacks effectively the same as having a 15 PRE, which isn't exactly timid.

Vulcan

Jan 22nd, '09, 01:03 PM

Whoa... I just talked about a house rule and it is like I killed somebody's cat or something. :eek:

Oh. I thought you were proposing it for 6E... Sorry! :o

Markdoc

Jan 22nd, '09, 01:52 PM

For the sake of simplifying the game, this is a darn good idea. I think that on a personal level I'd prefer to leave END and END use alone, but this is probably a better option for the RAW.

I should note that I personally have no problem with END and we used it as written for years without me seeing it as a problem :D. The approach I described is of recent (well, last 7 years :)) vintage. It happened because for my last FH campaign, all of the players were Hero noobs and several were complete RPG noobs. So I dumped END to make it as simple as possible (intending to introduce it once they were up to speed with the combat system). As it turned out the game worked fine without END, so I have stuck with the "no END" approach for my current campaign as well.

cheers, Mark

Lucius

Jan 24th, '09, 05:35 PM

And considering PRE: That is exactly what happened. The menalist had x1.5 effect from fear-based PRE-attacks which meant he either still shrugged them off (30 EGO gives you a big threshold, even against 150% PRE), often as easy or easier than the other characters (15 defenses vs 100% compared to 30 vs 150% has a break point). In the end, we decided to go with "EGO, does not Defend against PRE Attacks -1/4". Of course, by RAW such EGO would not give you ECV, since it does not limit the CV. Now that is silly and another great demonstration how messed up figureds are. You essentially cannot limit your EGO as a mentalist without gimping yourself.

Uh, Kdansky – Combat Value is not a Figured Characteristic.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the Rules as Written that forbids you from taking such a limitation on your EGO and still having the same ECV.

There are reasons for and against having Figured Characteristics, but this isn't one of them because CV and ECV aren't Figured Characteristics now.

"Low Characteristics" is very unfavoured, as is "lots of SFX", as is "timid Mentalist" (low EGO? unfeasible), as is "Clumsy, but efficient fighter" (low DEX + Combatlevels is totally point-inefficient) or "Berserker" (Self only Aid costs more than it's worth). There are a few more concepts which work badly, but most of those will be fixed when Figureds get eliminated. That is one of the main reasons why figureds should go: Better Toolbox.

Besides limiting EGO, you can have 2X Effect PRE (why did you only take 1 ½ X if you thought that too low?) and even add on a Susceptibility: Take extra 3d6 from PRE attacks. Now a 10 PRE character can do an average of about 24 on an attack without trying hard, and a 20 PRE attacker can get 38 on an average roll – enough to at least make an impression even on an EGO of 30 without the Limitation. With the Limitation, and assuming a PRE of 15 at most on the Mentalist, even a low level thug waving a knife is probably going to give the Timid Mentalist pause.

I admit I find it hard to understand what could even be meant by a “clumsy but efficient fighter.” Unless you mean “clumsy except when fighting?”

Berserker: Uh, how do you get from “Berserker” to “Must have Self Only Aid?” Just because the only way you've thought of to actualize a concept is inefficient, doesn't mean the system is prejudiced against the concept. There must be dozens of ways to write up “Berserkergang” and most of them are going to work better than “Self Only Aid.” Unless you're actually Aiding multiple Characteristics, in which case frankly I don't see it as all that inefficient.

Lucius Alexander

Figured Palindromedary

Lucius

Jan 24th, '09, 06:38 PM

Responding to discussion in the Limitations thread, but moving here because what they're talking about has expanded beyond Limitations:

Maybe it's already in the current edition and I just don't recall it, but there should be something about the ability of the person running the game to adjust costs. If it's there it needs to be retained, if not, it needs to be added.

There are two factors to this: The utility of an ability (or conversely, the negative impact of a Limitation or Disadvantage) and what the Game Operations Director wants to encourage or discourage.

For example, if you want to run a game that will involve frequent adventures both underwater and on land, Life Support: Breathes Water becomes exremely useful - and practically necessary. It should be made explicit that you have the option of just making it a "free" ability that costs no points, and allowing people who want to breathe just air or just water to take a Physical Limitation.

If one of your players wants their character to have an extensive collection of, and unusual knowledge of, antique snuffboxes, and you don't anticipate that playing any role in the game, let them take a Knowledge Skill for it at INT level (maybe even higher) for free. Same if the character is a Star Trek fan and has memorized most of the scripts for the original series. These factors can give flavor to the game ("At the reception, pass it off to me in this snuffbox - everyone knows I collect them, no one will think twice about it." "Okay, Leonard's not here tonight but the in-game reason for his character's absence is that he's at a Star Trek convention.") but probably shouldn't have to cost points - unless they start coming up in useful ways, in which case you can make the character pay for them. For an example of a non-"background" skill that this would apply to, consider a character from a rough frontier world who wants to take Riding because his home world uses horses extensively, but most of the game will take place on spaceships or alien worlds with nothing a Human can ride.

This can apply to other useful abilities besides skills; I'm reminded of a discussion once with a player who thought the character's concept should logically include immunity to snake venom. It was highly likely the character would never be bitten by a snake. (Technically in this case it might even fall under the existing rules regarding "SFX" - a small advantage accruing from the special effects of the character's other powers.)

Then there are cases where you may want to increase the cost of something. If Magesight is going to be extremely useful to characters who have it, but you don't necessarily want everyone to have it, you can double or even triple the basic cost.

I think making it explicit that costs are not totally inflexible will help to "genericize" the system and make it plain that Hero can be adapted to any setting or story type.

Lucius Alexander

Opinions are like palindromedaries; everyone has one. Uh, wait, that's not right....

Doc Democracy

Jan 25th, '09, 01:51 AM

Uh, Kdansky – Combat Value is not a Figured Characteristic.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the Rules as Written that forbids you from taking such a limitation on your EGO and still having the same ECV.

There are reasons for and against having Figured Characteristics, but this isn't one of them because CV and ECV aren't Figured Characteristics now.

So what is CV if it is not a figured characteristic?

It is not on the character sheet in that way but it is effectively a figured characteristic that is not allowed to be bought up independently of its parent characteristic.

You can argue semantically but in practice, I would say that CV is a figured characteristic.

Doc

SteveZilla

Jan 25th, '09, 03:31 AM

Here's a question for us to consider:

What is the mechanical difference between a Secondary Characteristic and a number that is calculated from a Primary Characteristic?

I think we need to hash out specific definitions of each.

To me, these are the definitions:

A Secondary Characteristic is one that derives it's Base Value from one or more Primary Characteristics, and this Base Value can be bought up or sold back. Also, Adjustments to Primary Characteristics have no effect on Secondary Characteristics.

A Calculated Value is one that derives it's only value from one or more Characteristics (could be Primary or Secondary), cannot be directly bought up or sold back, and is affected by Adjustments to any Characteristic it is calculated from.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 25th, '09, 07:04 AM

I have been considering a reasonably simple way to decouple SPD and movement, which also has other advantages:

The SPD chart is divided into four 3-second Rounds. Action phases take place at the current phases (e.g., segment 5 becomes Round 2, segment 2).
Base non-combat speed is 3x base movement.
In a Round, you can either take your phases as normal or you can make a move (combat or non-combat). You can use the second option even if you don't have any action phases for the Round.
An action phase can't be used to move non-combat; you need to spend an entire Round doing that. You can only move non-combat if your last action was a move.
You pay end for continuous powers once per Round, no matter how many actions you have in that Round.
Continuous damage effects take effect once per Round, no matter what the SPD of the attacker is.

Notes:
The reason why non-combat is set at x3 is that if is possible for fast characters (SPD 9+) to make up to three combat moves in a Round; obviously this should not be faster than a non-combat move.

Rather than using the current SPD chart divided into three, phases could be moved to the front of each Round (e.g. if you get two phases in a Round, you get them on the first two segments). This would be simpler, but more of a change.

The human max of Running should be 5" or 6"; otherwise, a maxed human runner could break the world record without pushing. I suggest simply replacing the current range of 6-10" with 6-10m.

5"/Round = 12 kph.

- Klaus

Vulcan

Jan 25th, '09, 07:40 AM

Doc Democracy

Jan 25th, '09, 09:32 AM

It is not on the character sheet in that way but it is effectively a figured characteristic that is not allowed to be bought up independently of its parent characteristic.

So please tell me, how do I buy up base CV independant of DEX?!

I am slightly confused - hence my original statement.

I said CV is a figured that is not allowed to be bought up (or down) independently.

However, the obvious way is to put a price on it.... :D

Doc

Greywind

Jan 25th, '09, 10:37 AM

...but it is only worth what someone is willing to pay...

Chris Goodwin

Jan 26th, '09, 07:23 AM

I am slightly confused - hence my original statement.

I said CV is a figured that is not allowed to be bought up (or down) independently.

However, the obvious way is to put a price on it.... :D

If you allow CV to be bought up and down independently....

If you put a cost on it...

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 26th, '09, 02:07 PM

If you allow CV to be bought up and down independently....

If you put a cost on it...

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs.

The point of this forum, at least to me, is to address whether the rules should add ham, eggs or both, and if so, their relative costs seems quite a reasonable extrapolation.

CV is figured from DEX. However, it is not allowed to be raised or lowered independently. Except that you can raise or lower it independently through:

- martial arts maneuvers (bundled with other changes)
- skill levels (but these are multipowers of OCV bonuses, DCV bonuses and damage bonuses)
- some powers (EB is really a multipower of Ranged Attack, Selective AoE Any Area with limited configurations and OCV; Shrinking and Growth both modify DCV)

Given you are supposed to be able to build any concept in Hero, why is it not possible to adjust these rather central abilities independently?

Lucius

Jan 26th, '09, 04:38 PM

So what is CV if it is not a figured characteristic?

It is not on the character sheet in that way but it is effectively a figured characteristic that is not allowed to be bought up independently of its parent characteristic.

You can argue semantically but in practice, I would say that CV is a figured characteristic.

Doc

I think SteveZilla has done a better job than I could of explaining the difference under the Current Regime.

I know everything could be redefined under the New Dispensation, but my statement was in the context of explaining to KDansky that he could put a Limitation on EGO (under the Rules as Written) without it changing his ECV. He seemed to be under a misapprehension that ECV is a Figured Characteristic and that therefore it would fall under the rule that if a Characteristic has a Limitation that wouldn't effect the Characteristics Figured from it, that Limited Characteristic doesn't count towards the Figured Characteristic.

I think it can be helpful, before talking about what needs to be changed, to clarify what the rules actually ARE at present. The rules don't need to be changed to permit what KDansky wants to do, because what he is talking about is already legal under the rules as they are. So he probably would, for example, be opposed to a change to make CV into a Figured Characteristic. :p

Lucius Alexander

Figured Palindromedary

SteveZilla

Jan 26th, '09, 05:19 PM

So what is CV if it is not a figured characteristic?

It is not on the character sheet in that way but it is effectively a figured characteristic that is not allowed to be bought up independently of its parent characteristic.

CV, while clearly figured/calculated from another Characteristic is not in and of itself a Characteristic because of what I bolded above. :)

Doc Democracy

Jan 27th, '09, 01:02 AM

CV, while clearly figured/calculated from another Characteristic is not in and of itself a Characteristic because of what I bolded above. :)

And this is partly what makes characteristics in the current dispensation (to steal the palindromedary's terminology) so confusing to newcomers.

These are primary characteristics and has rules that affect them in certain ways.

These are secondary characteristics and have different rules that affect them in certain ways.

These are calculated values and while they may resemble figured characteristics, they are not, they have different rules again.

Why? is this really as simple as it could be???

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 27th, '09, 02:16 AM

And this is partly what makes characteristics in the current dispensation (to steal the palindromedary's terminology) so confusing to newcomers.

These are primary characteristics and has rules that affect them in certain ways.

These are secondary characteristics and have different rules that affect them in certain ways.

These are calculated values and while they may resemble figured characteristics, they are not, they have different rules again.

Why? is this really as simple as it could be???
I think it could be simpler.

I have suggested streamlining the calculated values and using them instead of many current figured characteristics (the rest become independent characteristics).

Another way is to do away with calculated values altogether (including CV, skill bonuses and damage from STR) and let all these be figured or independent characteristics that can be improved/drained seperately from the primary characteristics.

Are there other ways?

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 27th, '09, 02:28 AM

I'm wondering if perhaps many problems with granularity of characteristics bonuses can be solved by simply expanding the human range to e.g. 30 (base 15). We would then get more breakpoints in the human range.

Each +5 to a characteristic (rounded down) would give:

+1d6 damage
+1 skill or CV
x1.6 lifting capacity from STR (+10% at +1; x4 at +15; x10 at +25)
This will retain the idea that you gain someething for each +5 on a characteristic, whether a skill bonus or a damage die, but streamline things:

No more bonuses for CHAR/3, only for CHAR/5
No mixing of rounding down (as for damage now) and rounding off (as for skills and characteristic rolls now)
The damage that a damage die represents will be reduced, so that a 12d6 attack would correspond to a 18d6 attack with the change. This means more dice.

- Klaus

Kdansky

Jan 27th, '09, 02:33 AM

I think SteveZilla has done a better job than I could of explaining the difference under the Current Regime.

I know everything could be redefined under the New Dispensation, but my statement was in the context of explaining to KDansky that he could put a Limitation on EGO (under the Rules as Written) without it changing his ECV. He seemed to be under a misapprehension that ECV is a Figured Characteristic and that therefore it would fall under the rule that if a Characteristic has a Limitation that wouldn't effect the Characteristics Figured from it, that Limited Characteristic doesn't count towards the Figured Characteristic.

I think it can be helpful, before talking about what needs to be changed, to clarify what the rules actually ARE at present. The rules don't need to be changed to permit what KDansky wants to do, because what he is talking about is already legal under the rules as they are. So he probably would, for example, be opposed to a change to make CV into a Figured Characteristic. :p

Lucius Alexander

Figured Palindromedary

Lucius figured me out! Oh no!

Chris Goodwin

Jan 27th, '09, 09:09 AM

The point of this forum, at least to me, is to address whether the rules should add ham, eggs or both, and if so, their relative costs seems quite a reasonable extrapolation.

What we have are hot dogs, which bear at best a passing resemblance to ham, and go with eggs not at all.

CV is not a Characteristic. There are at least several ways in which it neither is nor acts like a Characteristic. I can't see any good reason for making it one. I frankly don't believe that there's a serious proposal to make it one; it appears to me a matter of "if you want to decouple Figureds then CV is a Figured and should be decoupled". No, it's not, and no, it shouldn't.

Edit: More to the point, if you think CV should be a Characteristic, by all means, state why it should be. "It acts like a Characteristic" is not one of these reasons, because it doesn't. "Because we're decoupling Figured Characteristics, and CV is figured, therefore it is a Figured Characteristic" is not a reason, because CV is not a Characteristic. Right now you still need to explain why CV should be a Characteristic. I don't believe it should be. Not that I'm the guy you need to convince, but here's your chance.

Chris Goodwin

Jan 27th, '09, 10:36 AM

Doc Democracy

Jan 27th, '09, 11:26 AM

The reason Characteristics are confusing to newcomers is (a) because there are 14 of them and (b) six of them are Figured.

Why again should we add no fewer than two to that list?

Boy are you talking to the wrong person! Personally, I'd simply keep the characteristics that provide game accounting data (CV, STUN, BODY etc).

The question is - for another forum - what is your definition of a characteristic because I do not think that we have a consistent definition of what we expect from one.

Doc

(cross posted to characteristics forum (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1770867#post1770867))

The Main Man

Jan 27th, '09, 01:04 PM

I think it could be simpler.

I have suggested streamlining the calculated values and using them instead of many current figured characteristics (the rest become independent characteristics).

Another way is to do away with calculated values altogether (including CV, skill bonuses and damage from STR) and let all these be figured or independent characteristics that can be improved/drained seperately from the primary characteristics.

Are there other ways?

- Klaus
I agree that CHAR/2.5 does solve quite a few things.

CV and CHAR Rolls both stand to benefit from the calculation, so why not unify them?

Combat and Skills stand to benefit from simplicity if they are consolidate since they will be using the same basic calculations.

Not to toot d20's horn here, but it does this already and look where it is (or at least has been) - it is still supported by many gamers who do not wish to change to D&D 4th edition - IOW, it is still sold onto many gamers even though it's core game is discontinued.

If CV and CHAR Skill Bonuses are unified then Combat and Skills ought to be unified - Combat really is little more than the most in-depth skill in the history of RPG's.

Let's say that a CHAR value of 10 still provides 11- - this is probably the most important breakpoint (okay, currently that breakpoint actually is 8, but bear with me here) or else things become a mess up and down.

10/2.5 = 4
11-4 = 7

So 7 should be the Skill and the Combat base (since they are using the same basic calculations).

Heck it even works out because 7 falls in line with dice averages (3.5x2=7) whereas 9 does not (3.5x3 = 10.5).

It creates 4 breakpoints within any 10-point CHAR spread, Combat becomes little more than a very in-depth Skill while other Skills mechanically look deeper by association.

How does this not simplify a good portion of the game?

Greywind

Jan 27th, '09, 01:22 PM

No. CV is not a characteristic. It is a value based off of a characteristic.

Doc Democracy

Jan 27th, '09, 01:31 PM

And END is different how?

Greywind

Jan 27th, '09, 01:37 PM

You can buy it up or sell it back...

Doc Democracy

Jan 27th, '09, 01:47 PM

So no real difference then. It wouldn't be hard to assign a value...

The only reason it isn't a characteristic is that it isn't a characteristic in the 5th edition rules?

Doc

Hugh Neilson

Jan 27th, '09, 01:50 PM

So no real difference then. It wouldn't be hard to assign a value...

The only reason it isn't a characteristic is that it isn't a characteristic in the 5th edition rules?

That's the sole issue, in my view. One might reasonably call CV a "derived characteristic", as it is generated from a primary characteristic but can not be raised or lowered independent of that characteristic.

Given Hero prizes flexibility, derived characteristics should be converted to either figured characteristics or whatever term replaces them if figured characteristics go away. It should be possible - even easy - to raise or lower them.

Vulcan

Jan 27th, '09, 02:29 PM

Given Hero prizes flexibility, derived characteristics should be converted to either figured characteristics or whatever term replaces them if figured characteristics go away. It should be possible - even easy - to raise or lower them.

It should be easy for the player to raise or lower his character's CV's with points. Given how central CV's are to combat rules, and how central combat rules are to charcter creation, it should be very very hard for someone to raise or lower another character's CV.

Otherwise 40 DEX Drain CV Man becomes ruler of the world...

PhilFleischmann

Jan 27th, '09, 03:13 PM

And this is partly what makes characteristics in the current dispensation (to steal the palindromedary's terminology) so confusing to newcomers.

What? Confusing to newcomers?

The reason Characteristics are confusing to newcomers is (a) because there are 14 of them and (b) six of them are Figured.

Why again should we add no fewer than two to that list?
Confusing to newcomers? They weren't confusing to me when I was a newcomer, nor did they seem to confuse any of my gamer friends. We weren't confused about Primaries and Figureds. We weren't confused about CV. All of us were newcomers once. Did anyone here find these things confusing? They're certainly no more confusing than the various characteristics and calculations done in many other game systems, and even some video games.

This is an issue that keeps coming up in various threads. I think some of us are worrying too much about HERO being "hard" or "confusing" to newcomers. Give the players some credit for being at least somewhat intelligent, and willing and able to read the rules and understand them. And most people who get into an RPG system either have experience with some other RPG system, or have someone familiar with it to explain it to them.

RPGs are complicated by nature. People who get into them at all are willing to put in the effort to learn them, assuming it's a good system, which I believe HERO is.

Greywind

Jan 27th, '09, 04:17 PM

Education took a downward turn...

SteveZilla

Jan 27th, '09, 05:04 PM

CV, et al. are not characteristics, they are merely the numeric value associated with the *use* of a characteristic.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 27th, '09, 07:02 PM

It should be easy for the player to raise or lower his character's CV's with points. Given how central CV's are to combat rules, and how central combat rules are to charcter creation, it should be very very hard for someone to raise or lower another character's CV.

Otherwise 40 DEX Drain CV Man becomes ruler of the world...

If (and this is a major "if") CV adjustment is a game breaker, there are two reasonable solutions. The game rule solution ("CV cannot be affected by adjustment powers") and the game master solution ("no, you may not purchase an adjustment power that affects CV in my game"). 40 DEX Drain Dex man already drains CV (both OCV and DCV) from his targets, so we're not talking about something that can't be done at present in that regard, just something that would be done differently.

CV, et al. are not characteristics, they are merely the numeric value associated with the *use* of a characteristic.

Who's Al? That is, what other "numeric values associated with the *use* of a characteristic" do we have in the game?

In any event, one has only to add a price to OCV or DCV to convert it to a characteristic. On the other hand, we could remove the ability to purchase STUN, REC or END directly, making any or all of them purely a function of their primary characteristics and they would then, by your definition, not be characteristics.

If, to be characteristics, OCV and DCV must have a price per unit, then it is my opinion they should be made into characteristics by being given that price per unit. Unlike other "derived attributes", in the source material, characters with poor combat abilities (low CV) and high DEX are hardly unheard of. Rogues who possess an array of gross and fine motor skill driven abilities who are poor combatants appear in fantasy and science fiction settings. Skilled combatants lacking agility and finesse are also not uncommon. Such characters are rendered much easier to construct (not that it's not possible now, just neither easy nor intuitive) by reducing or eliminating the connection of DEX to CV.

I could certainly live with the link remaining, although I think pricing CV as something one can purchase separately (both OCV and DCV) would be a significant improvement. Further, I think the DEX to CV link is no stronger than the link between CON and END/REC, or DEX and SPD, so I believe that if the latter two links are removed, the former should also be removed.

IndianaJoe3

Jan 27th, '09, 07:09 PM

That is, what other "numeric values associated with the *use* of a characteristic" do we have in the game?

Skill rolls, PER rolls, and lift capacity come to mind. There may be others.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 27th, '09, 07:18 PM

Skill rolls, PER rolls, and lift capacity come to mind. There may be others.

Skill rolls have a direct cost in skill levels, and PER rolls in enhanced PER. DCV from a skill level does not equate to DCV from DEX.

Lift capacity works for me - in the source material, I see characters who lift with STR and characters who lift with telekinesis, but no one using any other abilities to lift. As such, making Lift a function of those abilities isn't an issue to me.

Markdoc

Jan 27th, '09, 10:50 PM

Skill rolls have a direct cost in skill levels, and PER rolls in enhanced PER. DCV from a skill level does not equate to DCV from DEX.

To be fair, neither do bonuses to skill rolls work exactly the same or cost the same as the base CHA roll.

While I see where you are coming from, I think we should be cautious about making things more complicated and difficult in the name of unifying the underlying theory. Game theory is nice, but it's no subsitute for the gaming experience.

cheers, Mark

Doc Democracy

Jan 28th, '09, 12:10 AM

Did anyone here find these things confusing?

Champions was the most difficult game I ever bought and played (I bought a couple of others that were more difficult and never played Chivalry and Sorcery and Space Opera being the majority of them!).

I came direct from AD&D and Runequest and Champions was something I read intermittently for a year before being forced to run a game by my friends who were desperate to play superheroes and knew I had bought it.

It scared me and I remember being confused by all of the numbers and all of the different ways of doing things.

So, put me (or my 15 year old self) in the confused camp....

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 28th, '09, 02:02 AM

I agree that CHAR/2.5 does solve quite a few things.
Glad to hear it! CHAR/3 would also work and avoids half-number figures.

Let's say that a CHAR value of 10 still provides 11- - this is probably the most important breakpoint (okay, currently that breakpoint actually is 8, but bear with me here) or else things become a mess up and down.

10/2.5 = 4
11-4 = 7

So 7 should be the Skill and the Combat base (since they are using the same basic calculations).

I'm not sure a CHAR value of 10 should provide 11-. For one, that's a 62.5% chance of success with a basic roll. For another, it would make CHAR 20 provide a 15- roll, which is a 95.4% chance. IMO, Hero has always had too high base skill rolls, and this might be an opportunity to fix that.

A better fixpoint might be that CHAR 20 should provide 13-. 20/2½ rd = 8, which makes the formula 5+(CHAR/2½) and CHAR 10 provide a 9- roll (32.5% success chance).

The roll-high alternative is 3d6+(CHAR/2½) >= 16 for a basic difficulty.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Jan 28th, '09, 04:39 AM

SteveZilla

Jan 28th, '09, 05:03 AM

Lift capacity works for me - in the source material, I see characters who lift with STR and characters who lift with telekinesis, but no one using any other abilities to lift. As such, making Lift a function of those abilities isn't an issue to me.

I'm curious. What source material is there where (if I understand correctly) a character has a lack of a stat, doesn't appear to be trained -- or poorly/partially trained (i.e. little if any skill levels in Hero System terms) -- and yet is still able to "run with the big dogs" in that stat's arena.

Someone upthread mentioned a "clumsy but effective fighter". Is this what you are referring to? If so, could you point me to an example of this in the source material?

:)

Hugh Neilson

Jan 28th, '09, 05:11 AM

I'm curious. What source material is there where (if I understand correctly) a character has a lack of a stat, doesn't appear to be trained -- or poorly/partially trained (i.e. little if any skill levels in Hero System terms) -- and yet is still able to "run with the big dogs" in that stat's arena.

Someone upthread mentioned a "clumsy but effective fighter". Is this what you are referring to? If so, could you point me to an example of this in the source material?

Fezzik from the Princess Bride seems quite effective, and wholly unremarkable in agility, especially as compared to his fellow characters.

Not in this thread (or so far back I can't easily find it), the charming, agile rogue possessed of numerous gross and fine motor skills at very high levels who avoids combat because he sucks at it.

There's a character like this in one of Eddings' series (and everyone else is much less agile and a far better fighter). Vila from Blake's 7, an accomplished thief and absolute coward in regards to combat, also comes to mind.

Of course, poor combatants make poor characters in most RPG's, as we gamers tend to prefer solving problems by beating someone up.

AnotherSkip

Jan 28th, '09, 05:28 AM

Fezzik from the Princess Bride seems quite effective, and wholly unremarkable in agility, especially as compared to his fellow characters.

Not in this thread (or so far back I can't easily find it), the charming, agile rogue possessed of numerous gross and fine motor skills at very high levels who avoids combat because he sucks at it.

There's a character like this in one of Eddings' series (and everyone else is much less agile and a far better fighter). Vila from Blake's 7, an accomplished thief and absolute coward in regards to combat, also comes to mind.

Of course, poor combatants make poor characters in most RPG's, as we gamers tend to prefer solving problems by beating someone up.

Fezzik has Skill levels vs Multible attackers, as he stated when he is up against the dread pirate Roberts. Eddingses Velvet and Silk (both agile thieves) rather easily combine combat effectiveness and Dex skills. who is it if not these?

Markdoc

Jan 28th, '09, 06:08 AM

Vila from Blake's 7, an accomplished thief and absolute coward in regards to combat, also comes to mind.

It should be pointed out, however, that on the very few occasions Vila had to fight, he was remarkably effective. Avon, who was no slouch in the combat department, was unable to overcome him when he tried to throw him out the airlock.

Vila is an example of a character who doesn't like to fight (Somebody could killed and that somebody might be me!) rather than a character who can't fight.

cheers, Mark

BobGreenwade

Jan 28th, '09, 07:22 AM

I agree that CHAR/2.5 does solve quite a few things.It exacerbates at least one, though: the difficulty of math (or, at least, the perceived difficulty) in the Hero System. Unless there's a table to simplify this, dividing by 2.5 is a mental leap that I don't think we want to subject new players to.
CV, et al. are not characteristics, they are merely the numeric value associated with the *use* of a characteristic.I do wonder why there's even a continued debate about what constitutes a Characteristic. The Characteristics are quite clearly listed and outlined in every edition of the rules. Saying that CV is a Characteristic doesn't automatically add it to the list when it's not there. If there's a suggestion or decision to make CV into a Figured Characteristic, then that's different; it's perfectly legitimate. But to say that CV is already a Characteristic is just factually incorrect.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 28th, '09, 07:32 AM

Fezzik has Skill levels vs Multible attackers, as he stated when he is up against the dread pirate Roberts. Eddingses Velvet and Silk (both agile thieves) rather easily combine combat effectiveness and Dex skills. who is it if not these?

I'm thinking of Talen, the young rogue in the Elenium and Tamuli books. These roguish characters tend not to be combatants. Often (as with Vila noted above), they are quite adept at avoiding injury, but not at inflicting it (a high DCV without a high OCV, something very much facilitated if one can purchase DCV directly, but not so much under the current model). I see no reason "base OCV" and "Base DCV" should be identical, and every reason to allow enhanced flexibility for them to differ without use of skill levels.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 28th, '09, 07:38 AM

I do wonder why there's even a continued debate about what constitutes a Characteristic. The Characteristics are quite clearly listed and outlined in every edition of the rules. Saying that CV is a Characteristic doesn't automatically add it to the list when it's not there. If there's a suggestion or decision to make CV into a Figured Characteristic, then that's different; it's perfectly legitimate. But to say that CV is already a Characteristic is just factually incorrect.

The definition of a Characteristic is, to me, the crux of the debate. Just because we don't name it "Primary Characteristic" or "Figured Characteristic" does not mean the term "characteristic" is not a decent description. Under what heading would you put traits like OCV and DCV?

If we want to define "Characteristic" as "One of the fourteen attributes specifically named as either a Primary Characteristic or a Figured Characteristic, capable of being purchased and sold back independently of other attributes", then CV is not a characteristic. If we define it as "Something with a default value possessed by every character unless sold back or removed by disadvantage, having either a constant base value or a base value determined by reference to another ability or characteristic", then CV is a characteristic, as is running, swimming or leaping.

In addition, even the current proposals are not limited to de-linking "Figured Characteristics" alone. Leaping is proposed to be de-linked from strength, and it is most certainly not a figured characteristic, as noted in the FAQ in the same breath as CV.

That said, Bob, I also wonder why there's even a continued debate about what constitutes a Characteristic. What does it matter whether CV is, or is not, a characteristic? The issue is not whether it is now, or whether it should be under 6e. It is whether the rules for determining and purchasing CV should change, whether CV is considered a "characteristic" (primary, figured, derived, secondary, ancillary or whatever other descriptor one wishes to hang on it), a "power" (like running, swimming and leaping) or anything else.

Let's discuss the issue, not the nomenclature.

I find the "but it's not a characteristic" posts distract from the real issue. It's like arguing that we should not decouple figured characteristics from primary characteristics because "but if we don't compute them from primary characteristics, they really aren't 'figured' any more". SO WHAT? Neither the present nomenclature for CV nor the future nomenclature for 'the characteristics formerly known as figured' will impact on game play.

SteveZilla

Jan 28th, '09, 10:00 AM

I'm thinking of Talen, the young rogue in the Elenium and Tamuli books. These roguish characters tend not to be combatants.

Sounds to me like a moderate level of DEX and Skill Levels (or just a high level of skill).

Often (as with Vila noted above), they are quite adept at avoiding injury, but not at inflicting it (a high DCV without a high OCV, something very much facilitated if one can purchase DCV directly, but not so much under the current model).

Perhaps they (Martial) Dodge/Block a lot, and/or have:

15 Combat Skill Levels: +3 w/ DCV

Or even:

18 Combat Inept: DEX +9 - Only For Non-Combat Uses(-1/2)

I see no reason "base OCV" and "Base DCV" should be identical, and every reason to allow enhanced flexibility for them to differ without use of skill levels.

Okay, then why should they differ without resorting to Skill Levels?

Lucius

Jan 28th, '09, 11:23 AM

And END is different how?

1. It is expended when you exert yourself
2. It is recovered based on your RECovery
3. It can be bought up and down
4. It can be Drained
5. It can be Aided
6. It can be Transferred
7. It can be Healed (if I'm not mistaken)
8. While the rate at which you lose it or regain it can be modified by the environment (such as temperature) it does not normally change value due to situational modifiers such as manuevers (as Combat Value can)
9. It is not normally directly modified by skill levels (as CV is)

There are probably more I'm not thinking of....

Lucius Alexander

How is a palindromedary unlike a bacandforthtrian? Ask Basil!

Doc Democracy

Jan 28th, '09, 12:10 PM

Most of those things do not apply to other characteristics either.

What I would like to explore is: what are the common features of characteristics? I'm stillnot sure we are all coming from the same place....

Doc

Vulcan

Jan 28th, '09, 01:16 PM

Doc Democracy

Jan 28th, '09, 02:00 PM

Common features of characteristics:

They can all be bought up or down, subject to limitations imposed by game balance.

They are all listed as characteristics in the RAW.

That pretty much covers what all 14 have in common, and the secondary is the one that is the real determining factor, because there are two other things that can be bought up or down (base movement rates). If we change that to 'What do Primary charcteristics have in common?' (and the same question about figured characteristics) we can come up with several more.

Thank you. This is a start. When we can define the features of a group then it is easier to talk about what it should be for and what should belong to it.

I'm not sure that those two reasons are good enough to group a set of anything together, I think I can add one more:

All characters have a base level of each of them.

So. We currently have two sets of things called characteristics (primary and secondary) what do these have in common, beyond what is common to characteristics?

Doc

Hugh Neilson

Jan 28th, '09, 02:23 PM

Sounds to me like a moderate level of DEX and Skill Levels (or just a high level of skill).

Perhaps they (Martial) Dodge/Block a lot, and/or have:

15 Combat Skill Levels: +3 w/ DCV

Or even:

18 Combat Inept: DEX +9 - Only For Non-Combat Uses(-1/2)

Okay, then why should they differ without resorting to Skill Levels?

Why should it not be possible for them to differ without resorting to skill levels? Isn’t Hero supposed to be flexible? The system should permit them to differ in order to match its claims:

The HERO System — the Ultimate Gamer’s Toolkit!

Widely regarded as the best roleplaying game system ever created, the HERO System has become even better with this Revised version of the 5th Edition rules!

Unlike any other roleplaying game, the HERO System provides you with unfettered flexibility, allowing you to exercise your own creativity without hindrance. Build any character, power, gadget, skill, weapon, ability, or vehicle you can think of! It’s the ultimate gamer’s toolkit, allowing you to do what you do best: create great characters and games.

Whatever you want to do, in any genre, time period, or setting, the HERO System lets you do it!

The 5th Edition, Revised includes:

—The complete HERO System 5th Edition rules, revised and updated to to address commonly-asked questions, improve clarity, and make the rulebook easier to use
—Hundreds of options for Hero gamers, allowing you to better create and define characters, abilities, vehicles, and more
—Over 300 example powers, gadgets, abilities, weapons, and spells for all genres
—A dozen sample characters, from all the major genres, along with guidelines about how to use the HERO System for each genre
—A detailed, comprehensive index

Emphasis added. The inability to modify OCV or DCV fetters my creativity, or at least hinders it. Unfetter it, please. Remove the hindrance.

I am thinking of characters who have base OCV and DCV that differs, but I cannot build them. Fix this, please.

I want to build characters whose base OCV and DCV differs. Make the Hero system let me do it.

Surely one more option, among all those hundreds already there, will not destroy the system!

If a 5 point skill level that added 1 to DCV actually worked exactly the same way, mechanically, as +1 DCV, then only price would be an issue, but then we would effectively be able to buy up (though not sell back) DCV, so why not add the ability to sell it back.

I suppose I can buy DCV. All I need is very limited Shrinking [0 END, Persistent, No Stealth Bonuses; No PER penalties; no size change] with Linked Knockback Resistance. Reasoning from effect, I'm hard to hit, and the only way to get that as an intrinsic ability, rather than something I must allocate levels to achieve, is Shrinking, so I just have to strip away the component parts :rolleyes:

Why should someone pay 30 points for +15 DEX that does not add to OCV and DCV? Actually, I guess you have the price right - for that 30 points, I get +3 to all DEX based skills (15 points, since those are RAW 5 point skill levels), and +1.5 Speed (since it's not "No Figured" - and clearly if it were, it should cost less, as DEX No Figured would cost the same and provide OCV, DCV and Lightning Reflexes as well as DEX skills).

Would you allow them to pay 15 points for +15 DEX, only for combat - that is, for 15 points, I get +5 OCV, +5 DCV and + 15 Lightning Reflexes? If giving up combat effects saves 10 points, combat effects should be worth about 10 points. Yet that 10 points will only buy me +2 DCV, and that's nonpersistent and disappears entirely under circumstances where real DCV would only be halved.

So I come back to the conclusion that either the components of DEX are overpriced, or DEX itself is underpriced.

Common features of characteristics:

They can all be bought up or down, subject to limitations imposed by game balance.

They are all listed as characteristics in the RAW.

That pretty much covers what all 14 have in common, and the secondary is the one that is the real determining factor, because there are two other things that can be bought up or down (base movement rates). If we change that to 'What do Primary charcteristics have in common?' (and the same question about figured characteristics) we can come up with several more.

Basically, then, the only thing that makes them characteristics is that we call them characteristics. Can we possibly now agree that this has a level of arbitrariness and discuss how the mechanics should work, rather than what certain elements are presently, or should be in future, referred to as?

PhilFleischmann

Jan 28th, '09, 04:38 PM

That is, what other "numeric values associated with the *use* of a characteristic" do we have in the game?
Number of dice of HtH damage, number of dice of Presence attack, number of negative BODY to kill someone, LTE-burning threshholds.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 28th, '09, 04:45 PM

I'd like to see a lower base roll (maybe 8-) accompanied by a more detailed discussion of tasks which are routine. Routine tasks would be automatic under normal circumstances for someone with a roll of 8-. Ideally, this would also be expanded outwards to the types of tasks which are routine for someone with a higher roll. This would, however, require some space for each skill.
While I do not want to change the way CHA rolls are calculated, your post gives me an idea: What if the base roll was 8+(CHA/4) or less (or something like that)? That way a true "normal" with characteristics of 8, would only have a 10- roll, while the "noteworthy normal" with characteristics of 10, would have 11-.

Bearing in mind that I like and prefer the CHA/5 method for rolls, here are some formulae that would give the 10- roll for "all 8" and the 11- roll for "all 10":

8+(CHA/4)-
9+(CHA/6)-
6+(CHA/2)- (This one is going way too far.)

nexus

Jan 28th, '09, 06:07 PM

6+(CHA/2)- (This one is going way too far.)

I actually like that one. I might institute it as a House rule in my next game.

Vulcan

Jan 28th, '09, 06:57 PM

So. We currently have two sets of things called characteristics (primary and secondary) what do these have in common, beyond what is common to characteristics?

There's one more thing all characteristics have in common (which I forgot earlier):

They define a general capability of most (if not all) characters in a simple integer format.

Primary Charactristics have this in common:

Base value of 10, with a well-defined scale varying from 'normal' (8) to Max Normal (20) to Definitely Superhuman (30+)

An assigned roll of varying utility determined by 9+(CHAR/5).

Defined rules for the effects of negative numbers

... I'm sure there's more, I just can't think of any right now.

Secondary Characteristics have this in common:

Base value determined by formula from one or more primary characteristics

A varying scale defining 'normal,' Max Normal, and Definitely Superhuman

Neither list is complete, I'm sure. Feel free to add to it.

SteveZilla

Jan 29th, '09, 02:58 AM

Why should it not be possible for them to differ without resorting to skill levels? Isn’t Hero supposed to be flexible?

I think we all know that Hero System, despite Long's glowing words (really just a sales pitch IMO), cannot truly build *everything*. And there is a point of diminished returns when adding more and more flexibilty to a system -- I think Hero is near or maybe at that point currently.

Emphasis added. The inability to modify OCV or DCV fetters my creativity, or at least hinders it. Unfetter it, please. Remove the hindrance.

I am thinking of characters who have base OCV and DCV that differs, but I cannot build them. Fix this, please.

I want to build characters whose base OCV and DCV differs. Make the Hero system let me do it.

Ask and ye shall receive! Lo, I give unto you this:

18 Slippery Little Git: DEX +9 - Only For DCV(-1/2)

And suddenly the character has different base OCV and DCV! ;) :)

So I come back to the conclusion that either the components of DEX are overpriced, or DEX itself is underpriced.

Or... maybe because we are looking at "building" DEX as it currently exists by *adding* things together, but when we want only a part of that, we have no choice but to use the bulky stick of -1/4, -1/2, etc. Limitations (a different kind of mathematical operation as well)?

Basically, then, the only thing that makes them characteristics is that we call them characteristics. Can we possibly now agree that this has a level of arbitrariness and discuss how the mechanics should work, rather than what certain elements are presently, or should be in future, referred to as?

At some point the breaking down of abilities has to stop (IMO when it's passed the point of diminished returns). Otherwise, just about every single number that is used in Hero System that isn't a Primary Characteristic could be called a "Figured Characteristic". Breaking them all down is a path to madness IMO.

For STR:
Is HtH Damage Figured?
Is Lifting/Carrying Figured?
Is Leaping Figured? (Currently, yes)
Is Throwing Distance Figured?
Is Encumbrance Limits Figured?

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 29th, '09, 03:54 AM

It exacerbates at least one, though: the difficulty of math (or, at least, the perceived difficulty) in the Hero System. Unless there's a table to simplify this, dividing by 2.5 is a mental leap that I don't think we want to subject new players to.
It can be expressed something like "Bonus is 2 for every 5 CHAR, with +1 at +3 CHAR". Much like is done with damage now: 1d6 per 5 STR, with +½d6 at +3 STR. (Haven't the book with me and can't recalle the exact wording, but you get the drift).

A table will of course also be useful.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 29th, '09, 04:22 AM

One thing to be aware of if changing the skill bonus divisor to e.g.CHA/2, CHA/3 or CHA/2½ is to balance skill level costs with characteristic costs. Right now, a skill level in e.g. "All PRE skills" costs the same as +5 PRE, which also increases all PRE skills by 1 (plus other stuff). Buying up characteristics should never be cheaper than buying skill levels (preferably, it should be a bit more expensive).

Let's examine CHA/2, since it is the most extreme proposition (personally, I favor CHA/3 or CHA/2½). Every +2 INT gives +1 on all INT skills and on PER rolls. Hence, +1 on all INT skills should cost at most 2 points, preferably 1½, and +1 on a tight group of skills should cost 1 point. What then should be the cost of +1 to a skill level? Perhaps ½ point.

Let's say this is also the cost of combat skill levels, e.g. 1 point for +1 with a tight group of attacks and 1½ points for +1 DCV. That's very cheap compared to now. If trading skill levels for damage is to be be more expensive than buying extra damage dice with 0 END cost (7½ points per die), we need to trade at least 8 levels for +1d6. This radically changes the balance between skill and damage.

There are several ways around this problem. One is to let combat skill levels be more expensive than regular skill levels, but this adds complexity. Another is to make every skill-related characteristic cost 2 (or more), in which case skill levels should cost double what's listed above, which seems more reasonable.

Everything changes again if the 3d6 skill/combat roll is replaced with something else, of course.

- Klaus

gojira

Jan 29th, '09, 10:41 AM

Hugh Neilson

Jan 29th, '09, 12:29 PM

I think we all know that Hero System, despite Long's glowing words (really just a sales pitch IMO), cannot truly build *everything*. And there is a point of diminished returns when adding more and more flexibilty to a system -- I think Hero is near or maybe at that point currently.

If Hero is going to pitch it, then it should live up to it. And I see this as a much more significant gap than, say, can I buy a 4 pip RKA for 20 points instead of 1d6+1 (just to pick an example out of the air...and we can already do that, as it's 1d6+1 with Standard Effect).

Ask and ye shall receive! Lo, I give unto you this:

18 Slippery Little Git: DEX +9 - Only For DCV(-1/2)

And suddenly the character has different base OCV and DCV! ;) :)

And the Player looked, and he despaired. Spake he, for 18 points, I get +3 DCV, sayest the Player, yet lo, for 27 points I can'st acquire +9 DEX, which doth grant the same +3 DCV, and a 9 point savings on mine Speed. And the Player saw that thus did the Others who had purchased DEX receive +3 OCV, +2 Skill Rolls and +9 Lightning Reflexes, and verily they paid nothing, nay not even a single point for these benefits.

And the Player didst wail and gnash his teeth, and cry out O My GM, why hast thou forsaken me?

And the GM didst say "Tough luck, for thou hast chosen a non-standard ability, which I doth look upon with disfavour, and lo, for this sin, I smite thee with excessive point costs."

And the Gamers looked, and they saw that it was not good!

And even if this were a cost-appropriate approach, why would we not just price DCV at 6 points (or build a "Slippery Little Git" talent that does the exact same thing)?

Or... maybe because we are looking at "building" DEX as it currently exists by *adding* things together, but when we want only a part of that, we have no choice but to use the bulky stick of -1/4, -1/2, etc. Limitations (a different kind of mathematical operation as well)?

That would be fine, but the limitations should encompass all the potential permutations and combinations, and be equitably priced. Having done all that work, I suggest we now have the tools to price the components independently anyway, so why not do so?

We could also eliminate all the current Figured's and require that you settle for what the primary gives you (and let them be augmented or reduced with adjustment powers along with the Primary). You want more? Well, we'll build limitations on the Primaries so you can buy DEX that only enhances Speed, or CON that only feeds to ED and REC, or BOD that only enhances STUN.

One thing to be aware of if changing the skill bonus divisor to e.g.CHA/2, CHA/3 or CHA/2½ is to balance skill level costs with characteristic costs. Right now, a skill level in e.g. "All PRE skills" costs the same as +5 PRE, which also increases all PRE skills by 1 (plus other stuff). Buying up characteristics should never be cheaper than buying skill levels (preferably, it should be a bit more expensive).

First, I agree. The cost of buying the component parts should be reasonably priced in comparison with the characteristic. I'm OK with buying the parts separately being a bit more expensive than buying the characteristic, but this should be reasonable, not "buying them separately costs double or triple".

Biggest problem - should we compare the cost of a skill level to the cost of a characteristic, or the doubled cost after NCM applies? I suggest we should either ditch NCM, or have the cost of skill levels vary between superheroic (lower cost) and heroic (higher cost; current costs probably work).

Rockhoof

Jan 29th, '09, 12:40 PM

Back to suggestions for Steve... ;)

I was thinking, with the new Bestiary mentioned in chat yesterday, that a Power Level stat might be useful for many types of monsters and NPCs. Those who want a quicker summary of the danger of an adversary might appreciate a single stat that encapsulates that concept.

[Snip]

The simplest type of Power Level could be just total points divided by some constant, like Total Points / 20. A slightly more complex system might work like a Rule of X: Highest AP attack /10 + (PD+ED)/10 + SPD. Call that "Danger Level". Like some things (magic systems, for example) Hero Games might want to use different types of Power Level stat per genre or world setting, depending on what they think would work best in that setting.

This would allow monsters to be listed in a table by power level, which could be a big boon to the harried GM.

It would also be an enormous boon to new players. What I would dearly, dearly love to see would be some nice guidelines for what's an appropriate challenge for a group of PCs.

Some questions that new GMs will have:
1. What's a good point total to build an end of adventure Boss for a group of 250pt (insert favorite point total here...) characters?

a. How many active points should the boss use for his most powerful power?
2. What about Goons? How many points should they be built on?

a. How many active points should a Goon use for his most powerful power?
3. How should one balance mixed theme encounters? What are some examples of mixed theme encounters?

a. Give an example of a Lieutenant and 5 Goons that's a good balanced encounter for 4-5 250pt players.
4. Give advice on when to increase the Active Point limit on powers, if ever.

What questions did you guys need when first GMing HERO?

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 29th, '09, 01:02 PM

Biggest problem - should we compare the cost of a skill level to the cost of a characteristic, or the doubled cost after NCM applies? I suggest we should either ditch NCM, or have the cost of skill levels vary between superheroic (lower cost) and heroic (higher cost; current costs probably work).
I think skill level costs should be compared to the straight characteristic costs, not those doubled after NCM. Otherwise, there would be no point in not buying characteristics all the way to the NCN (or the nearest breakpoint).

About ditching NCM: I can see a point in limiting normal humans, but I would rather see solid roofs rather than "normal humans can be superhuman at a little extra cost".

- Klaus

Lucius

Jan 29th, '09, 01:40 PM

PhilFleischmann

Jan 29th, '09, 02:23 PM

And the Player looked, and he despaired. Spake he, for 18 points, I get +3 DCV, sayest the Player, yet lo, for 27 points I can'st acquire +9 DEX, which doth grant the same +3 DCV, and a 9 point savings on mine Speed. And the Player saw that thus did the Others who had purchased DEX receive +3 OCV, +2 Skill Rolls and +9 Lightning Reflexes, and verily they paid nothing, nay not even a single point for these benefits.

And the Player didst wail and gnash his teeth, and cry out O My GM, why hast thou forsaken me?

And the GM didst say "Tough luck, for thou hast chosen a non-standard ability, which I doth look upon with disfavour, and lo, for this sin, I smite thee with excessive point costs."

And the Gamers looked, and they saw that it was not good!
And then the GM looked again, and the player looked a second time, and all those assembled, and as one they smote their foreheads with a mighty slapping, and spake thus: "D'oh! It's not a -1/2 Limitation for 'Only for DCV', but shouldst be a -3/4 Limitation, maybe even -1!"

And they recalculated, and lo, the price came to 15 points for the +3 DCV, just as if he had purchased 3 DCV-only Skill Levels!

And there was much rejoicing.

And then one player said, "Why are we talking like this?"

Vulcan

Jan 29th, '09, 04:24 PM

And then the GM looked again, and the player looked a second time, and all those assembled, and as one they smote their foreheads with a mighty slapping, and spake thus: "D'oh! It's not a -1/2 Limitation for 'Only for DCV', but shouldst be a -3/4 Limitation, maybe even -1!"

And they recalculated, and lo, the price came to 15 points for the +3 DCV, just as if he had purchased 3 DCV-only Skill Level!*

And there was much rejoicing.

And then one player said, "Why are we talking like this?"

*With the small exception that 3 DCV-only levels go away when you are stunned, whereas the DCV from '+9 DEX, only to determine DCV' is only halved...

Hugh Neilson

Jan 29th, '09, 05:02 PM

I think skill level costs should be compared to the straight characteristic costs, not those doubled after NCM. Otherwise, there would be no point in not buying characteristics all the way to the NCN (or the nearest breakpoint).

About ditching NCM: I can see a point in limiting normal humans, but I would rather see solid roofs rather than "normal humans can be superhuman at a little extra cost".

The problem is that, if skill levels are competetively priced compared to buying the characteristic at normal cost, they are a huge bargain when compared to double cost characteristics. If they are competetively priced compared to buying the characteristic at double cost, they are overpriced when compared to normal cost characteristics.

We need to decide what the objective is. If skill levels are overpriced in a Supers game, let's say so and suggest that characters in Supers games would typically rely on the characteristic rather than skill levels, but that skill levels would more commonly be purchased in a heroic game. Applying absolute caps would certainly motivate skill level purchases once you hit the limit, but if the characteristic is cheaper/more effective at the same cost, why would anyone not buy the characteristic to the maximum before buying levels?

And then the GM looked again, and the player looked a second time, and all those assembled, and as one they smote their foreheads with a mighty slapping, and spake thus: "D'oh! It's not a -1/2 Limitation for 'Only for DCV', but shouldst be a -3/4 Limitation, maybe even -1!"

And they recalculated, and lo, the price came to 15 points for the +3 DCV, just as if he had purchased 3 DCV-only Skill Levels!

And there was much rejoicing.

And then one player said, "Why are we talking like this?"

I agree that the answer is picking appropriate limitation values. I don't agree that -1 is appropriate. That suggests that +10 DEX is worth 15 points for DCV, and we know 10 goes to SPD. That leaves 5 points for DEX skills, OCV and Lightning Reflexes.

A -1 limitation indicates the ability loses about half its value. If "only DCV" is a -1 limitation, then "everything but DCV" is logically also -1 (or maybe -3/4 if we accept there is a modest discount for buying everything together).

Realistic limitation values for each "only" and each "not including" should be determined.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 29th, '09, 05:11 PM

I agree that the answer is picking appropriate limitation values. I don't agree that -1 is appropriate. That suggests that +10 DEX is worth 15 points for DCV, and we know 10 goes to SPD. That leaves 5 points for DEX skills, OCV and Lightning Reflexes.
That doesn't necessarily follow. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. Just because 10 DEX costs 30 and "DCV Only" is costs 15 does not mean that all the other things besides DCV have to add up to 15.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 30th, '09, 04:01 AM

The problem is that, if skill levels are competetively priced compared to buying the characteristic at normal cost, they are a huge bargain when compared to double cost characteristics. If they are competetively priced compared to buying the characteristic at double cost, they are overpriced when compared to normal cost characteristics.
Which is why I (and Lucius) suggest that there not be any double-cost characteristics, but rather a hard ceiling on characteristics for 'normal' types of campaigns. Sort of like the AP ceiling suggestions for various types of campaigns. After all, you aren't typically allowed to buy extra damage dice above the AP limit at double cost.

The ceiling for primary characteristics could vary according to campaign style, fe.g. 18 for low-powered normal campaigns and 25 for heroic campaigns.

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Jan 30th, '09, 04:41 AM

that a Power Level stat might be useful for many types of monsters and NPCs. Those who want a quicker summary of the danger of an adversary might appreciate a single stat that encapsulates that concept
.

i would shoot that down on Gp's. :thumbdown not trying to be mean or anythig like that but

1. 'Monsters' are point for point notoriously combatty. See any points in the 198 point Zombie (or skeleton i can never remember which) spent on additional languages, Ak's or even some sort of skill? nope. point for point a 200 point character would probably spend 1/3 on his non combat skills, meaning that any PC one on one can get hosed, just points wise.
2. there are far too many assumptions to get a good balance without skill at being a GM.
For example I was in one campaign dealing with hordes of the undead out of the Beastairy and blast it if we didnt have one person (or even in the campaign world) who had the Turn undead ability. those undead can be meh with enough turn undead but if the power is unavailible they become a LOT tougher.
3. Vulnerability and Susceptibility
3. Dont have time right now but even the DND EL system would produce TPK if used incorrectly as illustrated over at CriticalFumble.com (anyone really really wants me to dig up the link and Ill post it.)

Netzilla

Jan 30th, '09, 04:55 AM

Which is why I (and Lucius) suggest that there not be any double-cost characteristics, but rather a hard ceiling on characteristics for 'normal' types of campaigns. Sort of like the AP ceiling suggestions for various types of campaigns. After all, you aren't typically allowed to buy extra damage dice above the AP limit at double cost.

The ceiling for primary characteristics could vary according to campaign style, fe.g. 18 for low-powered normal campaigns and 25 for heroic campaigns.

- Klaus

If one still wanted to charge some sort of premium for exceeding normal human limits, they could create a Talent that allowed characters to purchase stats in the Legendary range ("Characteristics Comparison Table" 5ER 40). Charge around 20-30 points (depending on how rare you want it to be). If you don't have the Talent, you can't go above NCM.

Roughly, invert the NCM Disadvantage by making it a Talent for those campaigns that warrant it.

Alternately, you could charge a lesser price (I'd guess 2-3) to allow going Legendary in individual Characteristics. I wouldn't recommend mixing the two methods, however.

Finally, on the whole NCM issue (and this does directly relate to skills, I like the Normal Skill Maxima skills in the Valdorian Age. This causes skills to also double in price once they exceed a threshold. With Skill Levels, I make characters use 2 Skill Levels to increase a skill above NSM. So, a character has Acrobatics 13- and that's right on NSM. He also has +2 with all DEX skills. If he allocate both levels to his Acrobatics, he'll have a 14-.

If 6E were to keep NCM purchasing for some reason, I'd recommend also making NSM (as outlined above) part of the core rules. That way, we can price Skill Levels against the normal cost of Stats, and then they'll also be balanced against the doubled cost since the skills also double above normal human threshold.

Finally, if NCM is kept, I really, really, really, want the 'this characteristic is a power so NCM doesn't apply' loophole to go away (5ER 140 under "Disadvantages").

Hugh Neilson

Jan 30th, '09, 02:39 PM

That doesn't necessarily follow. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. Just because 10 DEX costs 30 and "DCV Only" is costs 15 does not mean that all the other things besides DCV have to add up to 15.

If all the things DEX provides add up to substantially more than the cost of DEX, I consider that unbalanced. This is why we continually see people pushing for the cost of STR to increase (or the cost of its components to decrease). The only difference is that the lack of a base price for OCV and DCV makes the DEX inequity less obvious.

And making DCV Only a -1 limitation implies that this removes half the utility of DEX. The other half would be what has been removed, which is everything else.

Which is why I (and Lucius) suggest that there not be any double-cost characteristics, but rather a hard ceiling on characteristics for 'normal' types of campaigns. Sort of like the AP ceiling suggestions for various types of campaigns. After all, you aren't typically allowed to buy extra damage dice above the AP limit at double cost.

As I believe I noted earlier, this means no one will reasonably buy skill levels before hitting the hard cap. Which is fine if you're OK with that (and with there being no point to skill levels in a Supers game with no cap).

Greywind

Jan 30th, '09, 04:40 PM

SteveZilla

Jan 30th, '09, 08:33 PM

And even if this were a cost-appropriate approach, why would we not just price DCV at 6 points (or build a "Slippery Little Git" talent that does the exact same thing)?

Look, I just threw that together to show that it was *possible* to have different OCV and DCV -- not to show what the "correct" price was. If I had put more time into thinking it through either the Limitation would be justifiable to be worth more, or we could add on other Limitations.

Even a -1/4 increase in the total Limitations would bring the price down to 15 -- the same as 3 5 pt DCV skill levels. And a -1/2 increase would make it 13 points.

Because moving around in a manner to avoid being hit (without resorting to an all-out dodge) is at least influenced by, if not dominated by, how Dextrous/Nimble a person is.

IMO if a fictional character *somehow* always seems to be missed by attackes aimed at him, there's something else going on. Either he's really Lucky, or he's actually dodging with a non-dodge SFX, or he's bought DCV levels.

Biggest problem - should we compare the cost of a skill level to the cost of a characteristic, or the doubled cost after NCM applies? I suggest we should either ditch NCM, or have the cost of skill levels vary between superheroic (lower cost) and heroic (higher cost; current costs probably work).

How can we even talk about the "right cost for skill levels when compared to the cost of the Characteristic" when the Characteristics themselves vary by 6 times the cost?

SteveZilla

Jan 30th, '09, 09:09 PM

... but if the characteristic is cheaper/more effective at the same cost, why would anyone not buy the characteristic to the maximum before buying levels?

Concept? Because that generally doesn't happen in the source material? Forrest Gump didn't turn into Einstein when he needed to learn about being a shrimp boat captain. His INT didn't change even though he needed to buy some INT-based skills.

Realistic limitation values for each "only" and each "not including" should be determined.

That would help, but the numbers aren't going to be an exact match because we're working with the "big stick" of division (by numbers in 1/4 incriments at that) instead of subtraction.

Rockhoof

Jan 30th, '09, 10:18 PM

i would shoot that down on Gp's. :thumbdown

You know, I take exactly the opposite point of view, and not just to be contrarian (which I'll admit to being sometimes). That sort of stuff is pure gold for getting new people into a game. The advanced players just ignore it, like they always do, but it gives a reference to the newer ones.

1. 'Monsters' are point for point notoriously combatty. See any points in the 198 point Zombie (or skeleton i can never remember which) spent on additional languages, Ak's or even some sort of skill? nope. point for point a 200 point character would probably spend 1/3 on his non combat skills, meaning that any PC one on one can get hosed, just points wise.

Then the game should simply assume that 'monstery' types are built on 1/3 fewer points. But that brings up another question: if most bad guys aren't on stage for more than 1/2 of a combat, why are they statted like PCs? They shouldn't be; that's a complete and total waste of the most precious resource in an RPG: the GM's time. Why should the GM fully stat out a One-Hit-Wonderboy#12 if he may only last 3 rounds? Give him 2 Attack powers, a spiffy active Defense power and a Utility power and be done with it. Then, look on a chart that cross-references your PC's average Active Point total and just give your bad guy END, PD and ED and such. Full stat blocks are for real villans.

Further, is a 2/3 point monster really a challenge for a group of PCs? What's a challenge to 5 pcs? Is it 3 NPCs built on 2/3s points? 4? 7? These are questions that the game system should help answer. Tool-kits are no good without instructions. Instructions are not for advanced players, they're for beginning players.

2. there are far too many assumptions to get a good balance without skill at being a GM.
For example I was in one campaign dealing with hordes of the undead out of the Beastairy and blast it if we didnt have one person (or even in the campaign world) who had the Turn undead ability. those undead can be meh with enough turn undead but if the power is unavailible they become a LOT tougher.

No, good balance comes from good underlying math. Again, instructions are not for advanced players. Accessibility to new players should be built in by design. Put in some guidelines about matching Defenses to particular AP Totals. Put in some guidelines about how to increase AP limits in various types of campaigns, put in some guidelines about how to use multiple weak attacks effectively. I could go on and on, but the point here is that new GMs shouldn't be having to rediscover the wheel on their own. If you have to leave balance completely up to the GM, then the system needs balancing.

3. Vulnerability and Susceptibility
3. Dont have time right now but even the DND EL system would produce TPK if used incorrectly as illustrated over at CriticalFumble.com (anyone really really wants me to dig up the link and Ill post it.)

Over on CriticalFumbles.net? I couldn't find it, and I looked 8 pages back. I read the WotC DnD DM boards every day - I get the RSS feed - and I see very, very few complaints about TPKs, almost none. I'd rather trust the pulse of the game to the GM forums on the official site.

Regardless, saying one CAN produce bad things from a system is no argument against especially since it works so well. If that were a valid reason, we should all have thrown out our HERO books at the first STOP sign. You'd have to show how putting in basic information in the rule books is some sort of hindrance.

The bottom line is this: I can design a fun, interesting, challenging encounter in DnD4 in under 30m, and keep doing it over and over. I can design a whole series of 10 encounters in a good night's work, all different, all challenging, all fair, and I'm a relative neophyte to the system. Nobody with as little experience in HERO as I have in DnD4 could possibly do the same and IMO, that really needs to be addressed.

Greywind

Jan 30th, '09, 10:34 PM

It shouldn't be that different or difficult.

If the GM has his NPCs and knows them, it really shouldn't be an issue.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 31st, '09, 01:52 AM

As I believe I noted earlier, this means no one will reasonably buy skill levels before hitting the hard cap. Which is fine if you're OK with that (and with there being no point to skill levels in a Supers game with no cap).
The object is of course to price skill levels so that they can be relevant alternatives to buying up characteristics.

Stat limits should be the GM's call, and not rule imposed.
Of course - just like AP limits are now. I imagine that characteristics ceilings will be something the GM choses for each campaign, but that they will be hard ceiilings within that campaign.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 31st, '09, 03:33 AM

I'm wondering if the current discussion belongs in the Characteristics thread, but since it involves both Characteristics and skills, I guess it is okay here.

Anyway, about the relative costs of Characteristics and skills, I have been thinking that all Characteristics should provide at least two things, e.g. bonuses to combat and a skill group or damage plus defense, and that buying a skill level or bonus for one of these things should be cheaper than buying up the Characteristic.

As an example, here is another go at a set of Characteristics based on the idea of a general Characteristic Bonus of CHA/2½ (i.e., +1 at each of 3, 5, 8, 10, etc.).

Primary Characteristics
Cost: 2 per +1 CHA => 5 per +1 Bonus
Note: Skill levels cost 3 points for a broad group, 2 points for a tight group, and 1 point for a single skill/attack. Three combat skill levels (except 1-point levels) can be traded for +1 DC damage.

STR
HTH/Thrown Damage (½d6 x bonus)
DEF (= Bonus)
Lifting capacity
Bonus to bracing vs. KB (-1m x Bonus)
Bonus to STR Roll
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~15 per +5 STR

CON (merged with BODY)
Stun threshold
REC (= Bonus)
Body points
Bonus to CON Roll
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~15 per +5 CON

DEX (a subset of current DEX Characteristic)
OCV (= Bonus)
Bonus to Manual Skills and DEX Roll
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~16 per +5 DEX

AGI (split off from current DEX Characteristic)
DCV (= Bonus)
Bonus to Athletic Skills and AGI Roll
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~16 per +5 AGI

INT
Bonus to PER Roll (and PER Skills?)
Bonus to Intellect Skills and INT Roll
Initiative (= INT)
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~16 per +5 INT
Note: I have valued Initiative bonus much lower than Lightning Reflexes now

PRE (now incorporates willpower)
PRE Attack damage (½d6 x bonus)
Bonus to Social Skills
Resistance to PRE Attacks
Bonus to Will Roll (resist interrogation/questioning ~ Resistance Talent)
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~14 per +5 PRE
Note: I have valued +1d6 PRE Attack and +5 to resist PRE Attacks at 3 points each

Secondary Characteristics
SPD, STUN, END. Their value isn't important for the above.

Optional Characteristics
Cost: 1 per +1 CHA => 2½ per +1 Bonus

EGO (for campaigns with mental powers; cost 1)
ECV (= Bonus)
Mental Defense (= Bonus)
Estimated total cost of individual elements: ~8 per +5 EGO

Other possible Optional Characteristics: Comeliness, Status, Magic Power

- Klaus

Rockhoof

Jan 31st, '09, 05:16 AM

It shouldn't be that different or difficult.

If the GM has his NPCs and knows them, it really shouldn't be an issue.

The problem is that this only true for values of $Knowing that == experienced. :)

Hugh Neilson

Jan 31st, '09, 05:26 AM

Concept? Because that generally doesn't happen in the source material? Forrest Gump didn't turn into Einstein when he needed to learn about being a shrimp boat captain. His INT didn't change even though he needed to buy some INT-based skills.

A player should not be forced to sacrifice efficiency to achieve a concept. The system should ensure that pricing for different abilities with the same mechanical effect is comparable so that the concept selected does not favoour some concepts over others.

PS: Shrimp Boat Captain, with a +1 to the roll for 1 point, seems reasonable. Your "bonus INT" which affects only 1 skill costs 1/5 the cost of the INT required to raise that single skill by an equal amount.

The object is of course to price skill levels so that they can be relevant alternatives to buying up characteristics.

Exactly. The system should not favour certain concepts over others. A character with 10 INT, PRE and DEX across the board who is especially experienced and well trained - let's say he has 14- in all INT skills, PRE skills, PER rolls and DEX skills, a DCV of 8 and an OCV of 8, gets a 4 1/2 d6 PRE attack, resists PRE attacks with 23 PRE defense, and acts at 23 DEX, should not cost significantly more, or significantly less, to build than a character with 23's in INT, PRE and DEX.

The latter costs 52 points (65 less 13 saved on SPD), or 67 if NCM applies. The former will, I expect, cost significantly more. Because the component parts are priced significantly higher than the characteristics required to generate them.

Of course - just like AP limits are now. I imagine that characteristics ceilings will be something the GM choses for each campaign, but that they will be hard ceiilings within that campaign.

I would envision the "hard cap" being a column added to the suggested power levels already in the book. It is up to the GM to decide whether to adopt one of those power levels or to create his own. While I agree the game should not impose these, it also needs to set a baseline which can be used by gamers wishing such a baseline, and can then be used as a basis for published source books. Just like no GM is required to start Heroic adventurers at 75 + 75, or starting Supers at 200 + 150, but the sourcebooks have to have a benchmark.

SteveZilla

Jan 31st, '09, 09:41 AM

PS: Shrimp Boat Captain, with a +1 to the roll for 1 point, seems reasonable. Your "bonus INT" which affects only 1 skill costs 1/5 the cost of the INT required to raise that single skill by an equal amount.

It would seem then that either we'd have to reprice Characteristics so they all cost the same, or reprice skills based upon what Characteristic's skills they apply to. And even then it's not fully equal/level. We'd also have to create a new kind of Skill Level -- one that applies to all Skills of a particular Characteristic simultaneously, since that is what increases to that Characteristic do.

Which would seem to imply that Skill Levels that affect fewer Skills simultaneously (or just few Skills altogether) would have to cost less than this new type of Skill Level -- and this new Skill Level would have to be about the same cost as the deduced portion of the Characteristic that does the same job. Meaning that the more/very specialized skill levels become truly a dime a dozen. Or we would have to raise the cost of characteristics & the new Skill Level to compensate.

So it would seem to me that we would either have to contend with characters specializing a lot to take advantage of the now dirt cheap Levels -- or just about every other power in the book would have to be repriced as well to keep them in line with the new, higher costs of the Characteristics (and adjust the point values for the different "power levels" of characters as well -- 350 pts may well wind up being the new "Low-Powered Super" or even the "Heroic Character").

Hugh Neilson

Jan 31st, '09, 10:04 AM

It would seem then that either we'd have to reprice Characteristics so they all cost the same, or reprice skills based upon what Characteristic's skills they apply to. And even then it's not fully equal/level. We'd also have to create a new kind of Skill Level -- one that applies to all Skills of a particular Characteristic simultaneously, since that is what increases to that Characteristic do.

The three characteristics which have an impact on a significant number of skills are INT (which also impacts PER), PRE (which also provides PRE attacks and defenses) and DEX (which also provides combat order, speed, OCV and DCV - more functions so reasonably more expensive). In my view, these should be addressed as follows (presuming NCM dies its well-deserved death):

- Skill levels with all INT skills reduced to cost 3 points, rather than 5 points. +1 to all PER rolls already costs 3 points. Total cost of +1 to all abilities granted by INT: 6. Total cost of INT to generate the same benefit: 5. Synergy is at a reasonable level.

- Skill levels with all PRE skills reduced to cost 3 points, rather than 5 points. +1d6 PRE attack costed at 3 points. Defense against PRE attacks removed from PRE (now exclusive to EGO). Same synergy as INT.

- Skill levels with all DEX skills reduced to 3 points (just like skill levels with all INT or all PRE skills). SPD stays unchanged. OCV, DCV and Lightning Reflexes appropriately priced. If need be, the cost of DEX changes.

Which would seem to imply that Skill Levels that affect fewer Skills simultaneously (or just few Skills altogether) would have to cost less than this new type of Skill Level -- and this new Skill Level would have to be about the same cost as the deduced portion of the Characteristic that does the same job. Meaning that the more/very specialized skill levels become truly a dime a dozen. Or we would have to raise the cost of characteristics & the new Skill Level to compensate.

I'd be OK changing the rule to state that a skill level with all INT skills adds +1 to ALL INT skills. I don't see it all the time, but complimentary rolls are an issue, and getting all the benefits INT grants to skills should be less expensive than getting all the benefits INT grants to both skills and PER rolls.

So it would seem to me that we would either have to contend with characters specializing a lot to take advantage of the now dirt cheap Levels

Good. Shouldn't it be more expensive to possess great expertise at a broad base of skills than a narrow range, or only a single skill?

As for the costing issue, what will starting points be when Figured's are de-linked?

IndianaJoe3

Jan 31st, '09, 01:14 PM

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 31st, '09, 01:25 PM

The three characteristics which have an impact on a significant number of skills are INT (which also impacts PER), PRE (which also provides PRE attacks and defenses) and DEX (which also provides combat order, speed, OCV and DCV - more functions so reasonably more expensive). In my view, these should be addressed as follows (presuming NCM dies its well-deserved death):

- Skill levels with all INT skills reduced to cost 3 points, rather than 5 points. +1 to all PER rolls already costs 3 points. Total cost of +1 to all abilities granted by INT: 6. Total cost of INT to generate the same benefit: 5. Synergy is at a reasonable level.

- Skill levels with all PRE skills reduced to cost 3 points, rather than 5 points. +1d6 PRE attack costed at 3 points. Defense against PRE attacks removed from PRE (now exclusive to EGO). Same synergy as INT.

- Skill levels with all DEX skills reduced to 3 points (just like skill levels with all INT or all PRE skills). SPD stays unchanged. OCV, DCV and Lightning Reflexes appropriately priced. If need be, the cost of DEX changes.
This is quite similar to the reasoning I used ifor the Characteristics set I describe here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1772966&postcount=2126), only I use consistent breakpoints and Characteristic costs. Whether greater consistency is worth the change in costs is of course a matter of taste. However, this kind of analysis must be made for all Characteristics in order to get balanced costs, even if the results mean butchering some sacred cows.

- Klaus

nexus

Jan 31st, '09, 01:31 PM

A very good point. Repped.

One problem is the Hero System characters and campaigns are much less standardized than D and D characters in pretty much any edition. Any guidelines would have to be suggestions. One group of PCs can (and usually will) look very different from another in a different campaign. It's the "price" of flexibility. D and D 4th does what it was meant to do well but it appears to do mainly that and nothing more. Hero System ostensibly is supposed to be able to do many things.

Klaus Mogensen

Jan 31st, '09, 01:36 PM

A very good point. Repped.
I would have repped it, too, if I were allowed.

As a busy person that rarely gets the time to GM, I really want preparation time to be shorter than game time, preferably by a factor of at least 5.

- Klaus

Greywind

Jan 31st, '09, 05:40 PM

The problem is that this only true for values of $Knowing that == experienced. :)If a person plans on running a game, they need to learn the system that they will be running.

Everybody makes mistakes. Experience just reduces the number of mistakes.

IndianaJoe3

Feb 1st, '09, 04:12 AM

One problem is the Hero System characters and campaigns are much less standardized than D and D characters in pretty much any edition. Any guidelines would have to be suggestions. One group of PCs can (and usually will) look very different from another in a different campaign. It's the "price" of flexibility. D and D 4th does what it was meant to do well but it appears to do mainly that and nothing more. Hero System ostensibly is supposed to be able to do many things.

I agree that the core rules are not the place to put what would be setting- or genre-specific constructs (except perhaps as examples). However, the genre books should be full of examples, and the settings books should make it as easy to set up as a D&D campaign (only more flexible).

Let me adopt my Lego analogy.

D&D 4e is a snap-together model kit.
The Hero system is a big box of all kinds of Legos.
The genre books are boxes of themed (space, castle, train, etc) Legos.
The settings books are Lego kits with instructions about putting the particular model together.

Netzilla

Feb 1st, '09, 05:52 AM

One thing that would help newby GMs in learning how to better balance scenarios would be to explain some of those things we experienced GMs already look at. Explain how the CV spread affects odds to hit. A simple chart like so:

OCV - DCV % to Hit
--------- --------
>= 6 99%
5 98%
4 95%
3 91%
2 84%
1 74%
0 63%
-1 50%
-2 38%
-3 26%
-4 16%
-5 9%
-6 5%
-7 2%
<= -8 0.5%
This would make it very obvious how much of an impact that CV has on the game, and how a seemingly small CV difference can make a big impact.

Another is to emphasise that Speed is actions per Turn. Reinforce the fact that a character with a 4 SPD is acting 4/3 more often that someone with a 3 SPD. Thus, their damage output or hit percentage should be comparatively less. That's obvious to us, having played the game for years, but it's generally not so for new players/GMs in my experience.

Another is to emphase the DEF to DC relationship: Explain that 1 DEF to 1 DC is going to get characters creamed whenever they get it. On the other hand 3 DEF to 1 DC makes for characters that are nigh unkillable and hard (though not impossible) to KO. Generally 2 to 2.5 is the sweet spot in my experience, depending on how leathal you want your game to be.

The "Gamemastering Hero" chapter has a lot of good general advice for GMs. However, it's all pretty system-neutral and really could use a discussion about some of the above factors that go into combat balance in this game.

A second thing that would help, would be to better utilize the Package Deal system to effectively build archetypal characters that have 60-80% of the available character points already spent leaving 20-40% for customizing skills and tweaking stats & powers a small amount. This way, new players have a good idea of what a typcial Tank Fighter might look like in a Fantasy Hero game. Likewise for the Energy Projector in a Champions game. A new player can take that Energy Projector archetype, plug in a special effect, some background skills and tweak a couple stats by a point or two and be ready to go. Obviously, these plug-and-play archetypal builds would go in the genre books, but they would greatly reduce the amount of time needed to get up and running for new players of the game and give easily customizable "stat-blocks" for GMs to tweak and have "quick-and-dirty" villans ready in just a few minutes. If the archetypal builds are already well balanced against one another, then the GM already has most of the balancing done for him.

Yes, I know this second idea is "very MnM", but that doesn't make it a bad thing. In fact, that's one of the things that I think MnM (andy many other games before it like Fung Shui and Cyberpunk 2020) did very well. You have the pre-balanced archetypes for new players and GMs to play with. For those with more experience, the archetypes are easy to ignore.

rreay

Feb 1st, '09, 09:26 AM

The bottom line is this: I can design a fun, interesting, challenging encounter in DnD4 in under 30m, and keep doing it over and over. I can design a whole series of 10 encounters in a good night's work, all different, all challenging, all fair, and I'm a relative neophyte to the system. Nobody with as little experience in HERO as I have in DnD4 could possibly do the same and IMO, that really needs to be addressed.

It's not always true; you can't do that when people push the system. The D&D CR system makes assumptions about the party makeup and when those assumptions aren't true the CR system breaks down.

True Story, our previous D&D campaign (3rd ed) had no Wizard or Sorcerer and no true Cleric (we had a multiclassed Shukenja instead). As a party, compared to the standard Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief group, we couldn't effect physically immune creatures, couldn't turn undead, couldn't AOE hordes, couldn't self buff (much), and couldn't heal well. If the GM followed the CR system the encounters were either a cake walk or impossible. It took him quite a while to find just the right balance of encounter for our group.

In HERO very few campaigns are going to be built with a common set of classes that you could base a CR style system on.

Having a discussion of balancing encounters in the GM section is a great idea. But I don't believe that HERO could ever get a CR system as good as D&D's, which isn't all that good in the first place.

nexus

Feb 1st, '09, 11:43 AM

I agree that the core rules are not the place to put what would be setting- or genre-specific constructs (except perhaps as examples). However, the genre books should be full of examples, and the settings books should make it as easy to set up as a D&D campaign (only more flexible).

Let me adopt my Lego analogy.

D&D 4e is a snap-together model kit.
The Hero system is a big box of all kinds of Legos.
The genre books are boxes of themed (space, castle, train, etc) Legos.
The settings books are Lego kits with instructions about putting the particular model together.

I still don't think any kind of "CR" system could be as well defined with Hero System. Even within a particular setting or especially genre. D and D is, by its nature a regulated, regimented game. There are options but they are laid out in definite terms that are generally stricter than Hero System. Even D and D's system starts to break down the more you diverge from the assumptions made in its creation. Not to say suggestions and tips couldn't be made but I don't think a "system" could be developed or that any attempts would be a Plug and Play as D and D. Hero System isn't a game, its a tool for building games and as such allot of work is going to be left up to the GM. It's not the nature of the beast.

Rockhoof

Feb 1st, '09, 11:55 AM

It's not always true; you can't do that when people push the system. The D&D CR system makes assumptions about the party makeup and when those assumptions aren't true the CR system breaks down.

True Story, our previous D&D campaign (3rd ed) had no Wizard or Sorcerer and no true Cleric (we had a multiclassed Shukenja instead). As a party, compared to the standard Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief group, we couldn't effect physically immune creatures, couldn't turn undead, couldn't AOE hordes, couldn't self buff (much), and couldn't heal well. If the GM followed the CR system the encounters were either a cake walk or impossible. It took him quite a while to find just the right balance of encounter for our group.

In HERO very few campaigns are going to be built with a common set of classes that you could base a CR style system on.

Having a discussion of balancing encounters in the GM section is a great idea. But I don't believe that HERO could ever get a CR system as good as D&D's, which isn't all that good in the first place.

Actually, these questions have been mostly addressed in 4e, in ways that I think are amazingly well thought out. Seriously, DnD4e is post-doc level design work.

Healing - Backup role forcing.

There is no "Healer Class" anymore, just Strikers, Leaders, Defenders, Controllers and Hybrids (like the Swordmage and the Beast Master Ranger). Leaders have access to powers that let people use their own healing surges, but that's not all they do.
Everyone heals - Everyone gets Healing Surges, most classes have access to a power that let's them use them in combat, and every class has Second Wind. Healers as a class are no longer necessary, really. I've got a party in my game with NO Clerics or Warlords, and they do just fine.
Opportunity Cost - There's no longer an opportunity cost associate with healing, it's not "either I heal our fighter *again* this round, or I actually get to cast a cool damage spell" anymore. Damaging spells have healing built in.

This sounds a lot like HERO, a bit more formalized, but IMO, that's a good thing. HERO has no Healer class, and the healing mechanics are actually pretty restrictive. Buffing players, however, is pretty easy, and the Leader concept is not terribly difficult to put into practice. You can play a healer type character if you want to, but nobody is forced to any more. Combat can be easier with a Cleric or a Warlord, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

Thieves/Rogues - Skill-based forcing

Traps and puzzles no longer have Thief/Rogue-only skills as prerequisites to finding/solving them. Most can be solved with either brute force or other skills in addition to Rogue-only skills.
Traps and puzzles are required by the rules to have other solutions than just rogue skill roles.

This is not something that HERO currently does, but might be wise to suggest to GMs, especially those with groups that have no Skill-based PCs. Traps now have HP totals, can have Arcana and Nature and History checks performed on them and others too. Traps are full-fledged players in encounters now, not random 'wear the party down' damage dealers. This is a most awesome and excellent change, and one I will be whole-heartedly adopting in all future games of whatever system, genre or scope.

Undead - Power type forcing
Resistances play a much smaller role now. They subtract a small amount of damage done. That's it. No cleric? Undead are still fun. No Fire-slinging Sorcerer and up against Ice Yetis? No problem.

There are two more things that DnD4e does that I think HERO should adopt. The first one is the idea of grades of opponents. They stole this concept from games like Ars Magica and Seven Seas, as well as DiKU MUDs like Everquest and World of Warcraft. The key thought here is quite simple, but profound: Opponents are not the stars of the show, PCs are. The up-shot of this thought is that Opponents can, and should be treated differently than PCs.

Opponents come in four grades: Minion, Standard, Elite and Solo.

Minions are Creeps, Goons & Thugs; the rank and file members of organisations, the common folk - they're supposed to be mowed down easily. They use the Average Damage rule and have 1hp unless buffed.
Standard opponents - They come in flavors, called roles. Controller, Artillery, Brute, Soldier and an over-role Leader. There's a separate expected defense/damage chart for each role dependent on the opponent's level (easily reconfigured to use CP in HERO). Standard opponents are 'worth' 4 Minions. Not by designer fiat, but by strict adherence to math.
Elites - Slightly better defenses, many more HP (BODY and STUN), a bit more utility - they get an extra couple of attack types, maybe a utility-type power. Elites are 'worth' 2 Standard opponents.
Solos - Same defenses as Elites; many, many more HP than even Elites; much more utility. Solos are 'worth' 5 Standard opponents.

The second thing that DnD4e does, and something that I alluded to above, is make assumptions. The System itself assumes that PCs will have defenses within a range between X and Y, and those PCs will have attacks that do, on average, Z amount of damage. This is not a bad thing. This is something that every GM in HERO does every day. DnD4e formalizes this process in an intuitive way and from those two assumptions, you can make two charts that greatly, vastly, unbelievably speed up encounter design for GMs.

The first chart is standardized stat formulas for NPCs. GMs simply shouldn't be creating full character write-ups for NPCs that are going to be on-scene for only 3 rounds. Adjust stats up and down based on role (Minion, Soldier, Brute, Artillery &ct.) and as needed to flesh out the NPC and move on.

The second chart is standardized damage formulas for NPCs. For a given level of NPC (read: CP total) with a given role (Artillery, Brute &ct.) the NPC should do X amount of damage on a successful hit. Here too is the design idea that NPCs shouldn't be obsessed over. Design a power, slap on some SFX and go.

If HERO can successfully absorb these design lessons, GMs will lose a massive block of micromanagement and gain an equally massive amount of time to plan more fun stuff for PCs to do. Additionally, these design ideas actually help enable certain GMing styles that are hard to pull off with HERO. The more fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants your GMing style, the harder you have it with HERO. This makes your job easier and not coincidentally, lowers the barrier to entry.

rreay

Feb 1st, '09, 03:02 PM

If HERO can successfully absorb these design lessons,

I'm not saying there is nothing HERO can learn from D&D. I think the general idea of a details "How to Balance an Encounter" section is a good one.

But HERO's goal is to let you build anything and it comes close. From what you're saying [1] in D&D 4th all the characters are now generalists. That's not a bad thing, but again it's an assumption about characters that might not be true in HERO.

[1] I have no experience with D&D 4th. I could be talking out my neither regions.

Greywind

Feb 1st, '09, 09:06 PM

Early on, there was a system that was given in an AC that gave a rough break down of a character on Offense, Defense and, I believe, Movement.

Other than that, the only thing you have to judge, based off of raw information, is experience. Even with that experience, the characters can surprise you and be more effective than they appear on paper.

AnotherSkip

Feb 2nd, '09, 05:25 AM

Healing - Backup role forcing.

There is no "Healer Class" anymore, just Strikers, Leaders, Defenders, Controllers and Hybrids (like the Swordmage and the Beast Master Ranger). Leaders have access to powers that let people use their own healing surges, but that's not all they do.

So they switched the system so that everyone can compensate for everone else? Very hero ish.

Everyone heals - Everyone gets Healing Surges, most classes have access to a power that let's them use them in combat, and every class has Second Wind. Healers as a class are no longer necessary, really. I've got a party in my game with NO Clerics or Warlords, and they do just fine.
Opportunity Cost - There's no longer an opportunity cost associate with healing, it's not "either I heal our fighter *again* this round, or I actually get to cast a cool damage spell" anymore. Damaging spells have healing built in.

This sounds a lot like HERO, a bit more formalized, but IMO, that's a good thing. HERO has no Healer class, and the healing mechanics are actually pretty restrictive. Buffing players, however, is pretty easy, and the Leader concept is not terribly difficult to put into practice. You can play a healer type character if you want to, but nobody is forced to any more. Combat can be easier with a Cleric or a Warlord, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

Thieves/Rogues - Skill-based forcing

Traps and puzzles no longer have Thief/Rogue-only skills as prerequisites to finding/solving them. Most can be solved with either brute force or other skills in addition to Rogue-only skills.
Traps and puzzles are required by the rules to have other solutions than just rogue skill roles.

This is not something that HERO currently does, but might be wise to suggest to GMs, especially those with groups that have no Skill-based PCs. Traps now have HP totals, can have Arcana and Nature and History checks performed on them and others too. Traps are full-fledged players in encounters now, not random 'wear the party down' damage dealers. This is a most awesome and excellent change, and one I will be whole-heartedly adopting in all future games of whatever system, genre or scope.

Sounds just like Hero to me, I have a lot of ways to solve stuff without resorting to Security/Lockpicking/Sleight of hand. Anyone can buy any skills and try to use them on all sorts of encouter situations. Gee sounds like DND finally caught a whiff of what hero has ben about for decades!

Undead - Power type forcing
Resistances play a much smaller role now. They subtract a small amount of damage done. That's it. No cleric? Undead are still fun. No Fire-slinging Sorcerer and up against Ice Yetis? No problem.

There are two more things that DnD4e does that I think HERO should adopt. The first one is the idea of grades of opponents. They stole this concept from games like Ars Magica and Seven Seas, as well as DiKU MUDs like Everquest and World of Warcraft. The key thought here is quite simple, but profound: Opponents are not the stars of the show, PCs are. The up-shot of this thought is that Opponents can, and should be treated differently than PCs.

Opponents come in four grades: Minion, Standard, Elite and Solo.

Minions are Creeps, Goons & Thugs; the rank and file members of organisations, the common folk - they're supposed to be mowed down easily. They use the Average Damage rule and have 1hp unless buffed.
Standard opponents - They come in flavors, called roles. Controller, Artillery, Brute, Soldier and an over-role Leader. There's a separate expected defense/damage chart for each role dependent on the opponent's level (easily reconfigured to use CP in HERO). Standard opponents are 'worth' 4 Minions. Not by designer fiat, but by strict adherence to math.
Elites - Slightly better defenses, many more HP (BODY and STUN), a bit more utility - they get an extra couple of attack types, maybe a utility-type power. Elites are 'worth' 2 Standard opponents.
Solos - Same defenses as Elites; many, many more HP than even Elites; much more utility. Solos are 'worth' 5 Standard opponents.

Judging from this I don't think you have read much of 5th edition. Especially the 10 rules for speeding up combat (which can lessen Gm Prep time).

The second thing that DnD4e does, and something that I alluded to above, is make assumptions. The System itself assumes that PCs will have defenses within a range between X and Y, and those PCs will have attacks that do, on average, Z amount of damage. This is not a bad thing. This is something that every GM in HERO does every day. DnD4e formalizes this process in an intuitive way and from those two assumptions, you can make two charts that greatly, vastly, unbelievably speed up encounter design for GMs.

I think it is bad. assumptions require either that they be 1. mostly Wrong for a system this flexible 2. built in to the system as a set of limitations/free powers. or even 3 a source material that does not reflect any other sources.

The first chart is standardized stat formulas for NPCs. GMs simply shouldn't be creating full character write-ups for NPCs that are going to be on-scene for only 3 rounds. Adjust stats up and down based on role (Minion, Soldier, Brute, Artillery &ct.) and as needed to flesh out the NPC and move on.

I agree I STILL have yet to write up the first beastie my players encoutered. You seem to be saying I need to place every stat for every NPC. Even the 5th ed says differently ( the paperboy whos only stat is a 12 Dex fer instnace)

[QUOTE=Rockhoof;1773562]The second chart is standardized damage formulas for NPCs. For a given level of NPC (read: CP total) with a given role (Artillery, Brute &ct.) the NPC should do X amount of damage on a successful hit. Here too is the design idea that NPCs shouldn't be obsessed over. Design a power, slap on some SFX and go.

If HERO can successfully absorb these design lessons, GMs will lose a massive block of micromanagement and gain an equally massive amount of time to plan more fun stuff for PCs to do. Additionally, these design ideas actually help enable certain GMing styles that are hard to pull off with HERO. The more fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants your GMing style, the harder you have it with HERO. This makes your job easier and not coincidentally, lowers the barrier to entry.

caris

Feb 2nd, '09, 05:32 AM

A second thing that would help, would be to better utilize the Package Deal system to effectively build archetypal characters that have 60-80% of the available character points already spent leaving 20-40% for customizing skills and tweaking stats & powers a small amount. This way, new players have a good idea of what a typcial Tank Fighter might look like in a Fantasy Hero game. Likewise for the Energy Projector in a Champions game. A new player can take that Energy Projector archetype, plug in a special effect, some background skills and tweak a couple stats by a point or two and be ready to go. Obviously, these plug-and-play archetypal builds would go in the genre books, but they would greatly reduce the amount of time needed to get up and running for new players of the game and give easily customizable "stat-blocks" for GMs to tweak and have "quick-and-dirty" villans ready in just a few minutes. If the archetypal builds are already well balanced against one another, then the GM already has most of the balancing done for him.

Yes, I know this second idea is "very MnM", but that doesn't make it a bad thing. In fact, that's one of the things that I think MnM (andy many other games before it like Fung Shui and Cyberpunk 2020) did very well. You have the pre-balanced archetypes for new players and GMs to play with. For those with more experience, the archetypes are easy to ignore.

You see, I can't help looking at this suggestion and seeing a problem that I continously have already only being made worse. That is the GM forcing my characters to meet some preconceived idea of what is allowable for an "archetype." If the GM decides that "energy projects" are general purpose alround fighters, "martial artists" are precision fighters, and "bricks" are power house, than when I bring in my low CV, high Def, high Damage Energy Projector, I have the GM trying to lower the Damage abd because only "bricks" can have an X DC attack and Y Def, but they will let me raise my CV, because "energy projectors" should have a CV of Z. I have a problem with this in games now without "standard" versions of the archetypes. I really fear what would happen with archetypes being standardized in presentation.

Netzilla

Feb 2nd, '09, 06:01 AM

You see, I can't help looking at this suggestion and seeing a problem that I continously have already only being made worse. That is the GM forcing my characters to meet some preconceived idea of what is allowable for an "archetype." If the GM decides that "energy projects" are general purpose alround fighters, "martial artists" are precision fighters, and "bricks" are power house, than when I bring in my low CV, high Def, high Damage Energy Projector, I have the GM trying to lower the Damage abd because only "bricks" can have an X DC attack and Y Def, but they will let me raise my CV, because "energy projectors" should have a CV of Z. I have a problem with this in games now without "standard" versions of the archetypes. I really fear what would happen with archetypes being standardized in presentation.

Yes, but you would be one of those experienced players I was referencing in the last line of my previous post.

caris

Feb 2nd, '09, 06:43 AM

Yes, but you would be one of those experienced players I was referencing in the last line of my previous post.

Except, that I would not be allowed to ignore the archetypes as you posit that I would be able to do so. The GMs that give me this hassle are all experienced Hero GMs, but they still cling to the concept that certain archetypes can only be built certain ways, and that varrying from them are bad wrong fun as other have put it. Having standardized versions of the archetypes in print would give them the stamp of orthodoxy of their veiws, and my experiences lead me to believe that others who would never have fallen into that mind set will once it has become a default part of the rules.

As an example, I have read the class of minds rules multiple times, no where have I ever seen it in the RAW that Human, Animal, Machine and Alien were the only possible set of class of minds that could be used, that a GM couldn't set up classes like sentient animals, non-sentient animals, and plants. Yet, the number of times that I have heard people complaining about Classes of Mind based on the idea that the only possible classes that RAW lets you use are Human, Animal, Machine and Alien is staggering to me. All because, the RAW only gives one sample list of what groups a GM could use, it has become the base assumption that is the only list that can be used. I could very easily see the same thing happening with these sample archetype builds.

I bring it up, because you were presenting the idea as something with no downside. There is a downside, the question is is that downside going to be sufficient in terms of number of people negatively impacted and severity of that negative impact to offset the potential benefits of these samples archetypes to new players. Of course, I'd point out that it is a sort of moot point. What you want already exists in all of the genre books that I own, and I suspect in all of them. What are the sample characters built at the suggested power levels if not what you are describing with the customization having to be done by backing out the points?

Netzilla

Feb 2nd, '09, 07:57 AM

Except, that I would not be allowed to ignore the archetypes as you posit that I would be able to do so. The GMs that give me this hassle are all experienced Hero GMs, but they still cling to the concept that certain archetypes can only be built certain ways, and that varrying from them are bad wrong fun as other have put it. Having standardized versions of the archetypes in print would give them the stamp of orthodoxy of their veiws, and my experiences lead me to believe that others who would never have fallen into that mind set will once it has become a default part of the rules.

Any rule or guideline can be abused if you assume an unreasonable GM. Objections that start from the premise of unreasonable/inflexible GMs or players are, in and of themselves, not enough for me to consider an idea or rule bad.

As an example, I have read the class of minds rules multiple times, no where have I ever seen it in the RAW that Human, Animal, Machine and Alien were the only possible set of class of minds that could be used, that a GM couldn't set up classes like sentient animals, non-sentient animals, and plants. Yet, the number of times that I have heard people complaining about Classes of Mind based on the idea that the only possible classes that RAW lets you use are Human, Animal, Machine and Alien is staggering to me. All because, the RAW only gives one sample list of what groups a GM could use, it has become the base assumption that is the only list that can be used. I could very easily see the same thing happening with these sample archetype builds.I've not seen those objections to the Classes Of Mind rules, myself, but I can't claim to have read every thread you have. The objections I've seen to the C.o.M. rules all revolve around getting free defenses and the rules forcing a specific set of SFX onto mental powers. Of course, that's neither here nor there. We can come up with examples of fans of this game trying to force their own "One True Way of Hero" for all kinds of rules. Again, the fact that rules abusers and "fundamentalists" will abuse a part of the system does not make that part of the system bad. (See my .sig for how I feel about this general concept both in and out of gaming.)

I bring it up, because you were presenting the idea as something with no downside. There is a downside, the question is is that downside going to be sufficient in terms of number of people negatively impacted and severity of that negative impact to offset the potential benefits of these samples archetypes to new players.I did not mean to imply that the idea was unabusable. There is no such thing. Yes, Steve Long has to decide if the potential for abuse out weights the benefits of the idea. That's true of everything in these threads.

Of course, I'd point out that it is a sort of moot point. What you want already exists in all of the genre books that I own, and I suspect in all of them. What are the sample characters built at the suggested power levels if not what you are describing with the customization having to be done by backing out the points?

Examples, by their nature of being complete write-ups, aren't really generic and don't expressly point out suggested areas of customization the way a template does. New players and GMs might not see what areas can be customized without critically impacting the functionality (combat or otherwise) of the example character as easily as experienced Herophiles can.

Also, going by your reasoning, why bother having Package Deals at all? They provide no mechanical benefit and you could just as easily write up sample policemen, wizards and so forth. All I'm suggesting is a variation on the Package Deal concept. The only real difference between an archetypal template and a Package Deal is how complete a character you end up with.

Finally, are you suggesting that Hero GMs are somehow more prone to fundamentalism than MnM or Interlock GMs? Both of those games (and plenty of others) have used the archetype concept very successfully in their games and I've not seen the complaints of fundamentalism that you fear will come if this idea is ported into Hero.

caris

Feb 2nd, '09, 08:17 AM

Examples, by their nature of being complete write-ups, aren't really generic and don't expressly point out suggested areas of customization the way a template does. New players and GMs might not see what areas can be customized without critically impacting the functionality (combat or otherwise) of the example character as easily as experienced Herophiles can.

Yes, but by having them as fully fleshed out characters it minimizes the perception of "this is how you build a wizard" or "this is what a martial artist should look like" by focusing on this is what Defender looks like (sorry, at work can't grab one of the other genre books to get the names of sample characters.

Also, going by your reasoning, why bother having Package Deals at all? They provide no mechanical benefit and you could just as easily write up sample policemen, wizards and so forth. All I'm suggesting is a variation on the Package Deal concept. The only real difference between an archetypal template and a Package Deal is how complete a character you end up with.

I prefer that package deals only focus on those things that are really necessary to the actual thing being discussed, and that a package deal only focus on a limited aspect of a character. If a package deal can sum up a character concept the way most people treat an archetype, than it has probably gone too far for my tastes. For example, I despise the package deals in Viper and Until, becuase they are way overdone for my tastes.

Edit: Now let me turn this back to you with another question, if archetypes are published as prebuilds that only need a little tweaking or customization, how are they different from a character class?

Finally, are you suggesting that Hero GMs are somehow more prone to fundamentalism than MnM or Interlock GMs? Both of those games (and plenty of others) have used the archetype concept very successfully in their games and I've not seen the complaints of fundamentalism that you fear will come if this idea is ported into Hero.

No, actually, I'm saying that there seems to be a tendancy to assume that Hero players and GMs are less prone to the traps of orthodoxy than they actually are. I've never played either Interlock or Mutants and Masterminds, so I can't comment. I have seen the same behavior about certain things having to be built in certain ways in RoleMaster, Earthdawn, DnD (up through 2nd, never playd 3rd or later), various Paladium systems, Shadowrun, various Story Teller systems, and Hero (as I've mentioned). I've personally, have never run into a game that published archetypes that didn't run into the problem of people that assume the published archetype is "the way things should be done."

BobGreenwade

Feb 2nd, '09, 08:56 AM

Regardless of how you feel about them, archetype information really isn't fodder for the core rulebook. It's genre specific.

caris

Feb 2nd, '09, 09:09 AM

Netzilla

Feb 2nd, '09, 09:10 AM

Yes, but by having them as fully fleshed out characters it minimizes the perception of "this is how you build a wizard" or "this is what a martial artist should look like" by focusing on this is what Defender looks like (sorry, at work can't grab one of the other genre books to get the names of sample characters.

Which can also be used as an argument for using archetypes over sample characters (though there's nothing to say you can't use both). Simply change "this is how you build a wizard" to "here's one possible wizard archetype to get your character started".

I prefer that package deals only focus on those things that are really necessary to the actual thing being discussed, and that a package deal only focus on a limited aspect of a character. If a package deal can sum up a character concept the way most people treat an archetype, than it has probably gone too far for my tastes. For example, I despise the package deals in Viper and Until, becuase they are way overdone for my tastes.You must also dislike some of the Special Forces packages from Dark Champions. Fair enough. This is more an argument of taste, however.

Edit: Now let me turn this back to you with another question, if archetypes are published as prebuilds that only need a little tweaking or customization, how are they different from a character class?Depends on exactly what you mean by 'character class'. Assuming you're going with the fairly common D&D style definition there's a number of things:
1. The underlying system used to build the archetype is exposed.
2. There is no restrictive road map of advancement (though this is also tied in to leveling).
3. There are no abilities that are unique to any given archetype.
4. There are no abilities excluded from any given archetype.
5. There is no requirement that you must use an archetype when building a character.

That's just off the top of my head.

No, actually, I'm saying that there seems to be a tendancy to assume that Hero players and GMs are less prone to the traps of orthodoxy than they actually are. I've never played either Interlock or Mutants and Masterminds, so I can't comment. I have seen the same behavior about certain things having to be built in certain ways in RoleMaster, Earthdawn, DnD (up through 2nd, never playd 3rd or later), various Paladium systems, Shadowrun, various Story Teller systems, and Hero (as I've mentioned). I've personally, have never run into a game that published archetypes that didn't run into the problem of people that assume the published archetype is "the way things should be done."Oh, I've seen plenty of cases of fundamentalism in Hero myself, so I have no illusions on that front:
* Force Field always must be energy based
* Armor must always be something physical
* Desolid means you can't speak, hear or breath because you're completely intangible
* Power armor must always be built with OIF, never OIHID.
* A character with Code vs Killing should never have a power build with Killing Attack.

That's just to list a few. None of this means I consider FF, Armor, Desolid, OIF, OIHID, CvK or KA to be bad rules. I would prefer not to restrict game design around what a few misguided soles may take to silly extremes.

Do you feel that the publication of the Until Superpowers Database caused an increase in fundamentalist thinking toward power builds? How about the Fantasy Hero Grimoire? I don't.

Netzilla

Feb 2nd, '09, 09:17 AM

Regardless of how you feel about them, archetype information really isn't fodder for the core rulebook. It's genre specific.
You don't feel that the core rulebook should include some of either sample characters or the kind of prebuilt archetypes of the type that Netzille is suggesting?

Actually, I agree with BobG on this, which is why I stated that these would go in the genre books in my original post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1773439#post1773439) on the subject:

Obviously, these plug-and-play archetypal builds would go in the genre books...

caris

Feb 3rd, '09, 06:54 AM

Which can also be used as an argument for using archetypes over sample characters (though there's nothing to say you can't use both). Simply change "this is how you build a wizard" to "here's one possible wizard archetype to get your character started".

If one accepts that is the way that people will read it, when my experience given how other things presented as “here is one way to do things” always gets read as “this is how you do it”.

You must also dislike some of the Special Forces packages from Dark Champions. Fair enough. This is more an argument of taste, however.

I’m sorry, I read:

Also, going by your reasoning, why bother having Package Deals at all? They provide no mechanical benefit and you could just as easily write up sample policemen, wizards and so forth. All I'm suggesting is a variation on the Package Deal concept. The only real difference between an archetypal template and a Package Deal is how complete a character you end up with.

As a request for my opinion on Package Deals and how I would perceive them as differing from your archetype. I respectfully suggest that you underestimate the importance of that level of completeness.

Depends on exactly what you mean by 'character class'. Assuming you're going with the fairly common D&D style definition there's a number of things:
1. The underlying system used to build the archetype is exposed.
2. There is no restrictive road map of advancement (though this is also tied in to leveling).
3. There are no abilities that are unique to any given archetype.
4. There are no abilities excluded from any given archetype.
5. There is no requirement that you must use an archetype when building a character.

That's just off the top of my head.

If the archetypes are so vague as not to effectively do #2-4 how useful are they going to be, particularly if the goal is to provide pre-balanced sets of characters?

In my experiences only #5 is the only thing you’ve listed that universally applicable to class systems. I’ve played in plenty of class games where numbers 3 and 4 either did not apply, or that there were multiple ways of by passing the restrictions as to make them useless. I also have played in multiple leveling systems where the character had either wide open options (because 3 and 4 did not apply), or that the way leveling is handled the character had a fairly wide set of options, even if they were not quite infinite.

Oh, I've seen plenty of cases of fundamentalism in Hero myself, so I have no illusions on that front:
* Force Field always must be energy based
* Armor must always be something physical
* Desolid means you can't speak, hear or breath because you're completely intangible
* Power armor must always be built with OIF, never OIHID.
* A character with Code vs Killing should never have a power build with Killing Attack.

That's just to list a few. None of this means I consider FF, Armor, Desolid, OIF, OIHID, CvK or KA to be bad rules. I would prefer not to restrict game design around what a few misguided soles may take to silly extremes.

Yet, there are multiple places where Steve Long has suggested changes for 6E that are basically just terminology changes to get around just the kind of issues that you are listing here.

Do you feel that the publication of the Until Superpowers Database caused an increase in fundamentalist thinking toward power builds? How about the Fantasy Hero Grimoire? I don't.

Actually, the single greatest cause in increased fundamentalist thinking that I have encountered since the publication of 5th has been the HERO System 5th Edition Rules Question forum on this board.

As far as the books that you’ve specifically mentioned, I’ve seen some, but that has been reduced by the fact that those books were large enough (and limited in scope enough) to devote space to multiple build variations for powers. I’m just not seeing the genre books being able to devote the space to 3-5 different versions of each archetype at the level of detail and completeness that you are proposing.

BobGreenwade

Feb 3rd, '09, 07:09 AM

You don't feel that the core rulebook should include some of either sample characters or the kind of prebuilt archetypes of the type that Netzille is suggesting?Sample characters, yes. Prebuilt archetypes, only to the extent that it can show how Package Deals work. But anything extensive should be left to the genre books.

Netzilla

Feb 3rd, '09, 08:36 AM

If one accepts that is the way that people will read it, when my experience given how other things presented as “here is one way to do things” always gets read as “this is how you do it”.

This, again, goes back to structuring the rules around "what are rules lawyers and abusers going to do". I don't think that's a good way to design rules.

Depends on exactly what you mean by 'character class'. Assuming you're going with the fairly common D&D style definition there's a number of things:
1. The underlying system used to build the archetype is exposed.
2. There is no restrictive road map of advancement (though this is also tied in to leveling).
3. There are no abilities that are unique to any given archetype.
4. There are no abilities excluded from any given archetype.
5. There is no requirement that you must use an archetype when building a character.

That's just off the top of my head.
If the archetypes are so vague as not to effectively do #2-4 how useful are they going to be, particularly if the goal is to provide pre-balanced sets of characters?
They'll be useful for what I originally stated (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1773439#post1773439) they'd be useful for:

...they would greatly reduce the amount of time needed to get up and running for new players of the game and give easily customizable "stat-blocks" for GMs to tweak and have "quick-and-dirty" villains ready in just a few minutes.

The whole point of the Archetypes, in my mind, is to reduce the "entry cost" for getting new players up and running and help reduce prep time (especially for new GMs).

In my experiences only #5 is the only thing you’ve listed that universally applicable to class systems. I’ve played in plenty of class games where numbers 3 and 4 either did not apply, or that there were multiple ways of by passing the restrictions as to make them useless. I also have played in multiple leveling systems where the character had either wide open options (because 3 and 4 did not apply), or that the way leveling is handled the character had a fairly wide set of options, even if they were not quite infinite.That would by why I stated that it depends on what exactly you were referring to by "character classes". I know that there is a variety of ways that they can be implemented. I chose D&D as a point of reference because that's probably what most people think of in regards to "character classes".

Yet, there are multiple places where Steve Long has suggested changes for 6E that are basically just terminology changes to get around just the kind of issues that you are listing here. Changes in terminology != scrapping the rule. Would you rather they be called something other than archetypes?

Actually, the single greatest cause in increased fundamentalist thinking that I have encountered since the publication of 5th has been the HERO System 5th Edition Rules Question forum on this board.Well, that is where Steve Long does post official rulings on rules issues. So, folks taking answers posted there as official rulings would seem to be expected. How would this be similar to people taking archetypes (or sample power builds or other such examples; things expressly not covered in that forum) as being the only way to do things?

As far as the books that you’ve specifically mentioned, I’ve seen some, but that has been reduced by the fact that those books were large enough (and limited in scope enough) to devote space to multiple build variations for powers. I’m just not seeing the genre books being able to devote the space to 3-5 different versions of each archetype at the level of detail and completeness that you are proposing.I don't think that they would need to. I really don't see the need to tailor the rules around those GMs who haven't (or won't) read the "Use And Abuse Of The Rules" section in the GMing chapter (5ER pg 551). I have played with people who violate some or even all of the advice given in that section. It doesn't matter how you write the rules, the rules can't stop these folks. I see no reason to try to use the rules to do that. My solution to unreasonable gamers has always been to find others to game with. Either they find a new group or I do. Life's too short to spend my fun time dealing with obnoxious control freaks.

The Main Man

Feb 3rd, '09, 09:08 AM

RDU Neil

Feb 3rd, '09, 12:54 PM

Once again, I think that this further proof that what is in the back of the 5er book should be in the front of the 6e book.

I am talking about sample characters, genres, tips, heck I am even starting to think that the in-game mechanics should precede the character creation rules.

I'd second this. It is a way of looking at the same things from a different perspective.

Start with the end product... all the stuff Hero can create and is "as a game" and then provide all the details of the "system" that can make them.

Currently you have all the details... moving toward the bigger picture... this would be bigger picture first, with details on how to make it, second.

Now most people are one way or another... they either prefer details/facts/pieces or they prefer bigger picture/concepts/connections... as the way to intake and process information. Everyone needs both... but where do they start... micro to macro (most common and how Hero is currently laid out) or macro to micro (not as common, but basically what you are suggesting.)

I'm definitely someone who is less interested in the details than in the concepts and end results and big picture... so I'd be totally happy to see it written this way. Such as we are in the minority of general population (in terms of mental processing) but Hero as a system might demand this way of looking at it... to provide context before facts.

Repped.

The Main Man

Feb 3rd, '09, 01:30 PM

Making a "Sidekick"-style book upon release would probably also be a good idea.

New players will find out if the like the idea of the system at all and us veterans can find out if buying the core book will be worthwhile for us.

Either way, money is made, eh?

Doc Democracy

Feb 4th, '09, 04:38 AM

Sample characters, yes. Prebuilt archetypes, only to the extent that it can show how Package Deals work. But anything extensive should be left to the genre books.

I think there is a need for something else. I think there is a need to be able to present background character in much less detail than a partial or complete character.

Something like

Policeman
CV: 3 (4 OCV with pistols). PRE 15, BODY 10, REC 3, PD/ED 4, SPD 2, STUN 25
PS: Policeman
Conversation 12-
Persuasion 13-

This kind of basic statblock should allow a new GM to quickly populate his background cast without the need to be trawling through the rulebook. This kind of stock character should be in the main rulebook just like the list of common weapons.

Doc

Balabanto

Feb 4th, '09, 07:39 AM

steamteck

Feb 4th, '09, 10:13 AM

MY only negative thought is for my own campaigns where we have a multiverse and characters move from fantasy to SF to Supers worlds. I think I need something where the same number means the same in all three environments.

SteveZilla

Feb 4th, '09, 10:25 AM

I think there is a need for something else. I think there is a need to be able to present background character in much less detail than a partial or complete character.

Something like

Policeman
CV: 3 (4 OCV with pistols). PRE 15, BODY 10, REC 3, PD/ED 4, SPD 2, STUN 25
PS: Policeman
Conversation 12-
Persuasion 13-

This kind of basic statblock should allow a new GM to quickly populate his background cast without the need to be trawling through the rulebook. This kind of stock character should be in the main rulebook just like the list of common weapons.

I'd add his END and STR Characteristics, and a summary of his common equipment. The equipment would be statted like the above policeman (meaning just the minimum, like: 9mm Beretta - 1d6 RKA. 10 rounds, 2 clips). I'd make sure that any equipment listed for NPCs, because of the minimal details, was found in an equipment list elsewhere, with it's full writeup.

Wasn't there some book previously that did a lot of this in regards to normals? Was it Normals Unbound (or something similar)?

SteveZilla

Feb 4th, '09, 10:57 AM

It occurs to me that in 6th edition, a lot of power creep issues could be solved by putting the Strength Chart and how much it can lift on a sliding scale. That way, you don't need more dice, the campaign and def and body scores for objects becomes subject to the genre rather than a more "realistic" build design.

If you want a STR of 30 to lift 1.6 tons, then it lifts 1.6 tons.

But, if you want a STR of 30 to lift only .5 tons, for instance, everything changes. The way that this would work is something like this.

STR Low Medium High Cosmic
0 0 0 0 0
10 25 kg 100 kg 100 kg 100 kg
15 50 kg 200 kg 400 kg 800 kg
20 100 kg 400 kg 1.6 Tons 6.4 Tons
30 400 kg 1.6 Tons 6.4 Tons 25 Tons

And so on. This assumes that the lifting chart delivers an equivalent amount of force applied for all powers and abilities. I.E. in a medium powered (Standard) Champions Campaign, a 12d6 EB delivers the equivalent of 100 Tons of force, the equivalent of a STR 60. Now you don't need to build things realistically, instead you just assign def and body scores based on the type of campaign you're running. In higher level games, you need weaker normals, but there are also optional rules that exist for that. Those are perfectly adjustable.

I think this will eliminate the need to roll ridiculous numbers of dice and bring the system back to a point where people can roll the number of dice that can reasonably fit in one hand.

I only ask that this idea be carefully considered.

I believe it would have to be an option -- perhaps a rule for the "system to build a game system" book (if such ever comes about). As such, I think it could only be used in a game where all the relative abilities fit within a certain range.

For one thing, 0 STR is not 0 kg (not yet, at least). But I have thought about something similar for the STR of a BattleMech -- sliding the scale of what "10 STR" can do. It's a way of having them all able to lift many tons, yet narrow the gap in lifting abilities between them. In such a game, IMO it would be made clear that Mech STR is not on the same scale as people STR (even with supers that could lift the same amount).

At high levels, a geometric progression eventually will cause even a single point of increase to be too much. What to do in that case?

Also, something similar to this idea (IIUC) was proposed for a scaling factor of defenses & weapons -- like scaling between people (AK-47), small vehicles (HMMWV, .50 cal MG), large vehicles (M1A2, 120 MM smooth bore cannon), even bigger (USS Iowa, 16" main guns), etc.

Balabanto

Feb 4th, '09, 11:58 AM

The reason why I say it doesn't matter is in a cosmic society, buildings, objects, and other things will be designed to that scale. Numbers are drastically reduced to reflect the scale. If a wall in a standard game has 5 DEF and 4 BODY, then a COSMIC wall in a COSMIC game has 5 DEF and 4 BODY, it's just COSMIC body. :)

Let special effect work for everything.

bigbywolfe

Feb 4th, '09, 12:10 PM

Doc Democracy

Feb 4th, '09, 01:15 PM

I'd add his END and STR Characteristics, and a summary of his common equipment. The equipment would be statted like the above policeman (meaning just the minimum, like: 9mm Beretta - 1d6 RKA. 10 rounds, 2 clips). I'd make sure that any equipment listed for NPCs, because of the minimal details, was found in an equipment list elsewhere, with it's full writeup.

The stats provided might be different for each and every character. For example a college professor might not have any physical stats listed as you'd not expect to use them in a combat situation.

They would have to be short and to the point. I'm not sure I'd add END because I would not be expecting to track it for such a faceless character - only the things that would potentially directly interact with one of my main characters.

Doc

Balabanto

Feb 4th, '09, 01:29 PM

But what about a COSMIC character in a Supers game? What about the above mentioned cross-over between Fantasy, Champions, Dark Champions, etc?

The GM has to pick a level and stick with it. You're thinking realistically instead of cinematically, and that's the problem. Hero specifically says it's a cinematic game, and yet, many of us spend billions of hours trying to "Accurately Represent" things. Why?

If you're running a cross-genre game like that, nothing is really going to work anyway, because you're not paying attention to the Superheroic vs. the Heroic model. Remember that in a heroic level game, PC's don't have to pay points for equipment, and in an superheroic game, PC's do. So that distinction is already built into the rules. You're asking the rules to do something that, according to the design philosophy of the metasystem, they're not supposed to do anyway.

As for a cosmic character in a normal supers game, there's a big difference between a single character and the metastructure of the world/universe. In a game where everyone plays PC's on the level of the Silver Surfer, and their opponents are this way, too, as long as the diceage is about even, a generic stat for "Wall" based on game balance for weak, medium, and tough is better mechanically than just throwing more dice at a problem to make things realistic.

In a normal supers game, that "Cosmic" character has a few more dice, or maybe some unusual power advantages to reflect that the things that he can do are "Cosmic" because he's not endemic to the general power level of the world. It's easier to build a few single exceptions than it is to break your universal metastructure and genre.

Rockhoof

Feb 4th, '09, 02:00 PM

I think there is a need for something else. I think there is a need to be able to present background character in much less detail than a partial or complete character.

Something like

Policeman
CV: 3 (4 OCV with pistols). PRE 15, BODY 10, REC 3, PD/ED 4, SPD 2, STUN 25
PS: Policeman
Conversation 12-
Persuasion 13-

This kind of basic statblock should allow a new GM to quickly populate his background cast without the need to be trawling through the rulebook. This kind of stock character should be in the main rulebook just like the list of common weapons.

Doc

This.

NPCs are not PCs, and should be treated accordingly. Full write-ups are for major villains, if that. NPCs need, at a maximum:
Basic stats.
One basic attack.
One specialty attack.
(Optional) One utility power.

That's it. Nothing complicated. The thing of it is, most people don't realize that most of the flavor of combat comes from the GM's descriptions and not much else.

A full scene 'boss' should have:
Basic stats + higher than normal BODY and STUN.
One basic attack.
Two specialty attacks (at least one AoE or Autofire).
Two utility powers.

There's more to this, but I'll keep it simple for now and expand later.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 4th, '09, 02:13 PM

STR Low Medium High Cosmic
0 0 0 0 0
10 25 KG 100 KG 100KG 100 KG
15 50 KG 200 KG 400 KG 800 KG
20 100 KG 400 KG 1.6 Tons 6.4 Tons
30 400 KG 1.6 Tons 6.4 Tons 25 Tons
I like the general idea, but I don't like the specific way you've made the chart here. First, I'd want the "standard" 10 STR to always stay at 100 kg. I'd suggest something more like this:

STR Very Low Low1 Low2 Medium High Cosmic
0 0 0 50 kg 25 kg 10 kg 6.4 kg
5 50 kg 25 kg 70 kg 50 kg 30 kg 25 kg
10 100 KG 100 kg 100 KG 100 KG 100 KG 100 kg
15 150 KG 225 kg 140 KG 200 KG 300 kg 400 KG
20 200 KG 400 kg 200 KG 400 kg 1 ton 1.6 Tons
25 250 kg 625 kg 280 kg 800 kg 3 tons 6.4 toms
30 300 kg 900 kg 400 kg 1.6 Tons 10 tons 25 Tons
35 350 kg 1225 kg 560 kg 3.2 tons 30 tons 100 tons
40 400 kg 1.6 tons 800 kg 6.4 tons 100 tons 400 tons
50 500 kg 2.5 tons 1.6 tons 25 tons 1000 tons 6.4 ktons
60 600 kg 3.6 tons 3.2 tons 100 tons 10 ktons 100 ktons
70 700 kg 4.9 tons 6.4 tons 400 tons 100 ktons 1600 ktons
80 800 kg 6.4 tons 12.5 tons 1.6 ktons 1000 ktons 25 Mtons

(Wow, that's a lot of work to get those columns to line up!)

What you call each of these scales doesn't really matter so much, but they're all fairly simple formulae:
Very Low is simply 10xSTR kg.
Low1 is STR^2 kg.
Low2 doubles for each +10 STR.
Medium is the current standard - double for each +5.
High is roughly triple for each +5.
Cosmic is quadruple for each +5.
And of course there's really no limit on how high you could go on the high end, but at some point it starts to seem ridiculous for someone to be able to lift 1.6 tons, but still only do 4d6 with a punch.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 4th, '09, 02:53 PM

The GM has to pick a level and stick with it. You're thinking realistically instead of cinematically, and that's the problem. Hero specifically says it's a cinematic game, and yet, many of us spend billions of hours trying to "Accurately Represent" things. Why?

If you're running a cross-genre game like that, nothing is really going to work anyway, because you're not paying attention to the Superheroic vs. the Heroic model. Remember that in a heroic level game, PC's don't have to pay points for equipment, and in an superheroic game, PC's do. So that distinction is already built into the rules. You're asking the rules to do something that, according to the design philosophy of the metasystem, they're not supposed to do anyway.

In the cross genre game, the 2d6 RKA Pistol does the same damage regardless of whether points were paid for it (character is a Super) or they were not (character is Heroic). How do we resolve that gun being fired at a Cosmic character?

As for a cosmic character in a normal supers game, there's a big difference between a single character and the metastructure of the world/universe. In a game where everyone plays PC's on the level of the Silver Surfer, and their opponents are this way, too, as long as the diceage is about even, a generic stat for "Wall" based on game balance for weak, medium, and tough is better mechanically than just throwing more dice at a problem to make things realistic.

What happens when the Surfer wants to blast through a normal mountain, take down a tank on earth, or Heal a normal human? The levels need to be able to interact meaningfully to actually run the Silver Surfer as he appears in the source material.

Greywind

Feb 4th, '09, 04:08 PM

Which is a good reason to leave the STR scale alone and just ramp up the power level of those characters that need it.

Balabanto

Feb 4th, '09, 06:30 PM

I knew there would be a lot of resistance to the idea when I posted it, but it postulates a PC based model. In general, the world functions in a PC centric manner whether you want it to or not. But the point is that the diceage issue is becoming stupid. I don't want to sit there while villains roll 30d6 and heroes are rolling 28 because that's what they need to challenge the villains under that model.

When the Surfer does those things, in a COSMIC game, they're easy because those beings are less powerful than he is. Cosmic should be the top of the scale, because it's cosmic. But consequently, it becomes easier to have more fragile normals and not roll ridiculous numbers of dice.

The difference is that the DICE don't change. The GENRE changes around the dice, and what you can do with those dice. The model for the amount of dice remains the same. This keeps you from having to build trillions upon trillions of dice. In a standard Champions game, Doctor Destroyer is more powerful when he aims at a wall than when he aims at a PC, because a Skyscraper has a DCV of 0, and he can pretty much destroy the entire thing and bring it down in a single shot.

This isn't the way the game was meant to be played. But more and more, that's how I see the game played if the villains are actually going to use effective tactics. Replacing raw dice with competent knowledge of the combat rules is not an option. But that's what happens, and what will continue to happen if a system isn't developed for this.

In the old days, in 1981, a starting hero threw 8d6. And we were cool with that. In the 4th edition set, a starting hero threw 10. In 5th 12. In 6th? Who knows?

I know that I'm tired of power escalation and power creep getting into Champions. This is a way of solving it.

Greywind

Feb 4th, '09, 11:41 PM

If you don't want to roll the dice, use standard effect.

Otherwise, the GM has the power to set caps. AP caps. DC caps. All of it.

So long as the GM gives experience to the players and the players spend it, there will be power creep. "Oh, I'll just buy an extra die on this attack."

The GM has the ability to approve or veto any XP expenditures.

Exactly where is the problem that the GM can't stop?

Balabanto

Feb 5th, '09, 03:31 AM

Standard effect is broken. The average number on a d6 is 3.5. You are ALWAYS better off rolling dice than you are taking standard effect. My players know this. They've known this for a long time.

Plus, dice ego is stupid. Half the fun of the game is not knowing what's going to happen and rolling the dice to find out.

MORE is not better. I've tried to convince people on these boards of this for many years, but apparently, somewhere along the way, people forgot that rolling dice was based on this magical thing called a bell curve.

The system breaks somewhere around 75 points, where certain types of powers literally become too efficient, in particular RKA vs. Energy Blast. A professional engineer who plays in my game wrote out the entire curve of ranges. He's very, very good at what he does and he agrees with me.

There is a two die staging system built into Champions, and if you use it, everything becomes balanced.

Everything does NOT have to be "Bigger, Faster, and Harder" in order for it to be "Better."

Saying "You're a bad gamemaster," which is effectively what you are saying, even if you don't realize that is what you're saying, pretty much forces me to say "Put your money where your mouth is. Run the game rules as written and see if anything survives when your NPC's, using the CU, use their best tactical options." Most master villains destroy whole cities just by showing up, because that's their best tactical option. One skyscraper an action phase. The PC's CANNOT save everyone, and thousands die.

Lowering the power level keeps the stakes from being so stupidly high. Saving the world should be special, not a weekly occurrance. If you enjoy that type of game, that's fine, but the entire point of the argument was that you could change the system so that the genre itself was part of the special effect, and all you would need to do is have a set of standard numbers for objects.

What they're made out of doesn't matter, because Def and Body are abstractions anyway. In a Golden Age Superhero game, some buildings are made of wood, others of concrete, and a few are made of steel. In a Space Game, the same numbers that inform those figures are now made of Steel, High Impact Teflon, and Whatever You Use in Your Universe for Unbelievium.

Stop saying that "Realism" is real. Because realism isn't real. It's just realism. Ayn Rand and objectivism don't really belong in Champions either, and more and more, that's where I see this conversation headed.

steamteck

Feb 5th, '09, 04:07 AM

Not, really what I've always liked about HERO is it DID allow me to run a cross dimensional multigenre campaign. Your rule sounds fine if you don't want tot do that. But I do so I want 1d6 to be the same 1d6 everywhere and 20 STR to stay the same everywhere..

Balabanto

Feb 5th, '09, 04:38 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 5th, '09, 07:14 AM

Balabanto

Feb 5th, '09, 07:32 AM

The thing is, in a high defenses/low attack campaign, where the average attack is around 10-12d6 and the average defenses are 22-30 or so, if you use standard effect, no one EVER drops. EVER.

x3 per die is not effective. A guy with 30 points of defense will only take 6 stun from a 12d6 attack, and a guy with 14d6 will only do 12, and he's at the top of the chart in the game I run.

If you want everyone in your game to be effectively invulnerable, you can use standard effect, but where it really makes people super tough is RKA.

Now, that RKA does 12 instead of it's average of 14, lowering the average amount of BODY people take by two.

And most RKA's will bounce like raindrops, because the average multiple is a 2.

The Main Man

Feb 5th, '09, 07:47 AM

I have a custom maneuver in my games that allows the players to roll for Average effect at -1 OCV.

For no penalty they may do Standard effect for the same reason that Balabanto listed (less effect than average)

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 5th, '09, 07:47 AM

Recent discussion got me thinking about a possible universal resolution system for both skills/attacks and damage: 2d6-2d6.

ROLL: Roll two white and two black dice, and then subtract the black dice from the white (for damage rolls, this includes Body). This gives a zero-centred distribution from -10 to +10 (a nice range). It gives a somewhat broader distribution than 3d6, with a slightly steeper bell curve.

Attack roll: ROLL + OCV is the DCV you hit.

Skill roll: ROLL + Skill must equal or exceed Difficulty Rating (base DR ~3)

Damage roll: Damage = ROLL + DC x (3 Stun, 1 Body).

Since the range is a bit broader, skill/attack bonuses should be a bit finer in the normal human range. This can be done either by having closer bonus increments (e.g. +1 per 3 or 2½ CHA) or by expanding the human range to e.g. 1-30 and keeping bonus increments at +1 per 5 CHA).

- Klaus

The Main Man

Feb 5th, '09, 08:03 AM

While I think that that resolution style sounds interesting, it does add an extra two steps (Addition and then Subtraction) to mere resolution rolling which could get tedious over time.

I was going to also mention that HERO should have one consistent scale in the core rules but I suppose that special effect scaling could appear in that "meta-toolkit" book concept that I and a few others refer to when these things come up.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 5th, '09, 08:22 AM

While I think that that resolution style sounds interesting, it does add an extra two steps (Addition and then Subtraction) to mere resolution rolling which could get tedious over time.
The math challenged can use a different way of reading the dice, which is harder to explain, but faster in practice:

Use the smaller sum of the white or black dice, with a sign determined by the color (black = minus, white = plus). If the sums are equal, count the result as zero.

Example 1: white dice 2, 4; black dice 3, 6. Result is +6 STUN, +2 BODY.
Example 2: white dice 2, 4; black dice 1, 5: Result is +0 STUN, -1 BODY.

- Klaus

BobGreenwade

Feb 5th, '09, 08:25 AM

On the issue of Characteristics costing different amounts in different games:

This is something that can be addressed in the main rulebook, but any actual variations should be set by the GM based on the qualities of the campaign.

I personally would like to see the 6E rulebook's wording such that Hero Designer can allow for GM settings, but that's only a mild preference. At the minimum, though, the question should be mentioned.

Balabanto

Feb 5th, '09, 09:16 AM

I'm not talking about characteristics costing different amounts in different games. I'm only talking about the STR chart as a measure of applicable game mechanics force for all effects. That way, by adjusting the STR chart, and how much characters can lift, you can abstract the DEF and BODY scores of objects based on what the characters do.

No more need to roll more dice than a character can reasonably fit in your hand. Half the purpose of the game is to roll the dice, there's never any reason to roll Standard Effect.

I just like the idea that I can run any game with the same set of balance parameters and can set a generic set of characteristics for objects, rather than altering the dice maximums after years of playtesting.

Netzilla

Feb 5th, '09, 09:39 AM

While I think that that resolution style sounds interesting, it does add an extra two steps (Addition and then Subtraction) to mere resolution rolling which could get tedious over time.

Having played Feng Shui a fair amount, it's really no slower than adding up 3 dice in my experience. Especially if you use dice that are already marked positive and negative, like these (http://www.learningresources.com/product/teachers/shop+by+category/manipulatives/math/probability/positive+and+negative+number+dice.do).

http://www.learningresources.com/images/en_US//local/products/altview/large/prod7695_1_lg.jpg

The Main Man

Feb 5th, '09, 12:05 PM

The Main Man

Feb 5th, '09, 12:12 PM

Having played Feng Shui a fair amount, it's really no slower than adding up 3 dice in my experience. Especially if you use dice that are already marked positive and negative, like these (http://www.learningresources.com/product/teachers/shop+by+category/manipulatives/math/probability/positive+and+negative+number+dice.do).

http://www.learningresources.com/images/en_US//local/products/altview/large/prod7695_1_lg.jpg

I have never played Feng Shui (I'm open-minded though - that's how I found HERO) and for all I know that's all the (relative) complexity that it has but when such a resolution mechanic is added to the heap that HERO already has then that's what I am getting at.

HERO is already loaded with math, so I think that keeping its resolution to only one operation (addition) would be for the best.

Netzilla

Feb 5th, '09, 01:04 PM

I have never played Feng Shui (I'm open-minded though - that's how I found HERO) and for all I know that's all the (relative) complexity that it has but when such a resolution mechanic is added to the heap that HERO already has then that's what I am getting at.

Heh. Opinions differ as to the complexity of FS. Even though I disagree with them, I've known a number of people to describe it as high-crunch mechanics-wise (of course, you should see what they say about Hero). Personally, I put it near the low-end of moderate complexity (but I put Hero in the moderate category outside of character creation).

HERO is already loaded with math, so I think that keeping its resolution to only one operation (addition) would be for the best.Character creation in Hero is fairly math-heavy. Actual game-play isn't so bad.

Current To Hit Mechanic:
* 3d6 <= 11 + (OCV + Mods) - (DCV + Mods) (5 operations)
* Alternatively: OCV + Mods + 11 - 3d6 >= DCV + Mods (5 operations)

Proposed To Hit Mechanic:
* 2d6 - 2d6 + OCV + Mods >= DCV + Mods (5 operations)

Same number of operations either way; both involving 1 subtraction step.

Current Skill Roll Mechanic:
* 3d6 + Mods <= Skill Level (2 operations)

Proposed Skill Roll Mechanic:
* 2d6 - 2d6 + Skill Level >= Difficulty (3 operations)

A single additional step.

Overall, it doesn't seem that there's that much overhead added to the system. The real question is if one additional step on skill resolution (but not attack resolution) is worth the benefits of

larger bell curve for finer granularity
higher die total is always better (doesn't matter much to me but several folks have expressed a preference for this)

Now, I should state that I'm not arguing that Hero should go to this method. I'm perfectly happy with the current 3d6 system. However, going to 2d6 - 2d6 would be fine with me as well. The additional math involved is trivial. Heck, unlike some of the other proposed changes, you can still keep the same ranges of Skill and CV levels making backwards compatibility easier.

The only concern I would have with this method all relate to odds and that's just gut feeling until I run the numbers. I'll need to crunch some numbers to compare the odds of common skill checks and what viable CV spread the new method would create.

If nothing else, it would make for a decent optional rule if SL wants to include optional die mechanics in the core book.

Greywind

Feb 5th, '09, 04:10 PM

Saying "You're a bad gamemaster," which is effectively what you are saying, even if you don't realize that is what you're saying, pretty much forces me to say "Put your money where your mouth is. Run the game rules as written and see if anything survives when your NPC's, using the CU, use their best tactical options." Most master villains destroy whole cities just by showing up, because that's their best tactical option. One skyscraper an action phase. The PC's CANNOT save everyone, and thousands die. I'm not saying you are a bad GM. I'm saying the GM of any given game has the ability/the power/the need to say no, if, in his opinion, what a player wants will break down the campaign.

Villians, on a whole, for all their intelligence and power, are stupid. That is why they fail constantly.

The "high stakes" is a trope of the genre. Deal with it or don't.

The point is that those can be parameters like anything else that the GM sets up for his game.

The thing I miss most about 4th edition that I wish they'd bring back was the "GM Campaign Guidelines" chart.

That was a very useful thing. AP Minimums/Maximums. Campaign Tone, etc...

I really loved that chart. That and the "Character creation checklist."Hero System Resource Kit

gojira

Feb 5th, '09, 06:30 PM

Markdoc

Feb 6th, '09, 02:22 AM

I personally would like to see the 6E rulebook's wording such that Hero Designer can allow for GM settings, but that's only a mild preference. At the minimum, though, the question should be mentioned.

Hero Designer already does this (via Templates). In all my FH games, for example STR costs 2 and HD does that automatically

cheers, Mark

SteveZilla

Feb 6th, '09, 04:01 AM

The stats provided might be different for each and every character. For example a college professor might not have any physical stats listed as you'd not expect to use them in a combat situation.

Good point. "Relevant" would be entirely character (and it's intended use in the game) dependent.

They would have to be short and to the point. I'm not sure I'd add END because I would not be expecting to track it for such a faceless character - only the things that would potentially directly interact with one of my main characters.

Personally, I would doubt the need to track his END as well. For any Characteristics not listed, the GM could easily choose an appropriate value that would fall in the expected range. No EGO listed but the player wants to Mind Control the NPC? That is an opportunity to add some "flesh" to the skeleton provided by the minimal writeup. You could add the (now) relevant Characteristic (and possibly a Disad or two) because in closely interacting with the NPC, he has risen above the "background noise" to the player -- so to speak.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 6th, '09, 01:46 PM

Recent discussion got me thinking about a possible universal resolution system for both skills/attacks and damage: 2d6-2d6.
This method is statistically identical to simply rolling 4d6. You can just subtract 14 if you want the bell curve centered at 0.

And we've discussed 4d6 resolution before. (And 5d6, and 6d6, etc.) 4d6 increases the granularity only very slightly. The difference between 10- and 11- on 3d6 is 12.5%. The difference between 13- and 14- on 4d6 is 11.3%. (Which is the same as the difference between -1- and 0- on 2d6-2d6). Not that much of a difference.

Even if you increase the number of dice for to-hit and skill resolution all the way to 12d6 (!), you've really only increased the granularity by about double (the difference between the two middle rolls on 12d6 is 6.65%). So you quadruple the number of dice to get less than double the granularity.

If you really want to increase the granularity of the resolution roll, you need to roll "bigger" dice - 3d8, 3d10, or my favorite 3d12. Doubling the size of the dice, doubles the granularity.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 6th, '09, 02:22 PM

This method is statistically identical to simply rolling 4d6. You can just subtract 14 if you want the bell curve centered at 0.
[...]
If you really want to increase the granularity of the resolution roll, you need to roll "bigger" dice - 3d8, 3d10, or my favorite 3d12. Doubling the size of the dice, doubles the granularity.
I'm aware of that. I'm suggesting 2d6-2d6 not so much to increase the standard deviation (7.071 compared to 6.124 for 3d6, only 15% greater), but to (a) get a zero-centred distribution and (b) allowing the same resolution system for damage and skill rolls, as described above.

- Klaus

ghost-angel

Feb 7th, '09, 06:22 AM

The point is that those can be parameters like anything else that the GM sets up for his game.

The thing I miss most about 4th edition that I wish they'd bring back was the "GM Campaign Guidelines" chart.

That was a very useful thing. AP Minimums/Maximums. Campaign Tone, etc...

I really loved that chart. That and the "Character creation checklist."

Uh, you mean like the Guidelines Chart on 5ER p28-29.

You know, the charts with Characteristics Ranges, Speed ranges, CV ranges, DCs, Active Points, Skill Points, Skill Rolls, Def/rDef. And the point total charts. And Design Guideline charts of point allocations?

Those guideline charts? Amazing how 5ER provides those.

Character Creation Checklist: 5ER page p31.
Campaign Tone is on pages 543-545 in the GAMEMASTERING Chapter.
Don't forget the Genre By Genre section of 5ER either.

Steve has done a better job with setting up guidelines and ideas for running Campaigns in 5th Edition that 4th Edition ever did.

So what you really meant was "I hope Steve includes all that again." :rolleyes:

Balabanto

Feb 7th, '09, 12:10 PM

I actually disagree, Ghost Angel. It was better when the GM had campaign parameters that they could set themselves. I completely disagree with a lot of the ranges that he set, and I had to go back and redo all the charts anyway, because I run a gameworld where there are about 60 PCs who are rotated through and game balance screams if I don't.

I know people who think that if your character has a 14- in a skill, that's too high. Others think that if you have an 11- in a science, you should be a scientific genius. Some people think you're not brilliant unless you can make the rolls at 20-.

Now, given that, I think that the charts were not "Custom tinkering" enough.

Luckily, I had already done most of that work during 4th edition, so it didn't kill me to ignore Steven's ranges. But...what if I was a new player and didn't agree with what I saw?

A GM can always say no, but allowing the GM to actually set the ranges is far better than giving a fixed set thereof.

As for the 4e Character Creation Checklist? That document needs to be reprinted. It's absence in 5th has created LOADS of problems, simply because it's not reprinted in it's original form.

ghost-angel

Feb 7th, '09, 01:20 PM

The Main Man

Feb 7th, '09, 01:23 PM

Where does it say that the guidelines are fixed?

"Guideline" inherently indicates flexibility.

ghost-angel

Feb 7th, '09, 01:26 PM

Where does it say that the guidelines are fixed?

"Guideline" inherently indicates flexibility.

That's a very good point indeed. Have Rep.

Balabanto

Feb 7th, '09, 01:44 PM

Well, I'm not sure what you're saying at all.

Are you talking about the Character Creation Checklist on p12 of the BBB? That's the only I could find in 4E and stunningly enough it's the same checklist on page 31 of fifth edition revised - so maybe you need to clarify what it is you're talking about.

And I guess what you're really saying about the guidelines Steve provides in 5ER is that they need to be changed? Or more information on how to change them? What are you really after?

You said there aren't any, I see bunches. Your "suggestion" is a bit vague. . . I'm having a hard time figuring out if I'd like to second the motion or not.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the one that asks questions like

Is the character too powerful?

Is the character so efficiently designed that every campaign villain will have to be redesigned to cope with this PC?

Is the character too weak?

Does the character have powers or abilities which step on the toes of the other PCs?

THAT one.

ghost-angel

Feb 7th, '09, 01:58 PM

AHA! You're talking about the GM Checklist in the Gamemastering Section in the back of the BBB in the Champions sourcebook. The part of the book I almost never went into. (BBB p S35)

OK, yeah I can agree that might be a helpful list of things to consider for inclusion in 6E.

Balabanto

Feb 7th, '09, 02:24 PM

I firmly believe, GA, that the lack of inclusion of that checklist has caused a whole mess of unnecessary power creep, even among hero system freelancers like me. :)

ghost-angel

Feb 7th, '09, 02:27 PM

Well, while I disagree with the premise and reason - the list itself can be a useful tool for GMs when fitting characters into their campaign.

Mostly because I haven't noticed any power creep . . . :)

Balabanto

Feb 7th, '09, 02:30 PM

My game still runs on the 4e power curve where 14 is a ridiculously huge number of dice. I buy the supplements to make sure Hero stays in business and the rules supplements are perfected.

The Main Man

Feb 8th, '09, 06:26 AM

Now that the confusion has been cleared, what is this "GM's Checklist?"

I have never played 4e.

Balabanto

Feb 8th, '09, 10:52 AM

Sadly, I have no functioning BBBs left. They're all gone.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 8th, '09, 12:16 PM

4th edition included numerous checklists the GM could use to work out aspects of his campaign. There were questions to ask about the campaign, things like realism, morality, humor, and so on, rated in scales of 1-5. There were also included (in 4e's Fantasy Hero) a list of all of the Powers and Modifiers, where the GM could check off whether they were prohibited, allowed, recommended, or mandatory for a particular magic system.

Greywind

Feb 8th, '09, 02:14 PM

...which is all included in the Resource Kit...

ghost-angel

Feb 8th, '09, 04:53 PM

Everything except the GM Questionaire from the BBB, which is a good page to tack onto the stuff from the Resource Kit.

gojira

Feb 8th, '09, 06:41 PM

Just had a random thought today....

Blue Jogger posted up a Teleportation Spell in the Fantasy forum that moves people from town to town. Active Points: 12. Add limitations and put it on a scroll and it's 3-4 points.

This seems very cheap. I think there's some other things in Hero that don't scale well: EDM, Desolidificaion, Invisibility, etc. As point levels for characters go up, these become trivial to buy. A possible solution is to provide an optional sliding scale for these powers based on Active Points. Like in a game with a 75 point cap on Active Points, 40 points for Desolidification is about right, but in a game with with a 120 Active Point cap (Galactic Champions or something) maybe Desolidification should cost 70 points. Teleportation + Mega-scale seems like it should just cost more.

Ok, that was my one neuron firing for the day. Thanks for listening.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 9th, '09, 05:27 AM

Just had a random thought today....

Blue Jogger posted up a Teleportation Spell in the Fantasy forum that moves people from town to town. Active Points: 12. Add limitations and put it on a scroll and it's 3-4 points.

This seems very cheap.

Teleportation + Mega-scale seems like it should just cost more.

Why? To my mind, such an ability is a game simplifier. If the gaming group doesn't want to play out overland travel, this provides an out at a reasonably inexpensive cost. How different is "You cast your Teleport spell and the party arrives in Northern Ridge" from "The barge takes you as far as it can in a week's travel, after which four days' hard ride brings you to Northern Ridge"?

If the group prefers to play out those overland journeys, the GM has only to decide he won't allow that construct. Regardless of whether the Heroes arrive in Northern Ridge in five minutes or travel for five months, the events of the scenario will only start once they have arrived anyway.

I think there's some other things in Hero that don't scale well: EDM, Desolidificaion, Invisibility, etc. As point levels for characters go up, these become trivial to buy. A possible solution is to provide an optional sliding scale for these powers based on Active Points. Like in a game with a 75 point cap on Active Points, 40 points for Desolidification is about right, but in a game with with a 120 Active Point cap (Galactic Champions or something) maybe Desolidification should cost 70 points.

Yes and no. In a 120 AP game, more characters will have affects desolid and/or SFX to target the Desolid character. Their also more likely to have variable SFX and/or variable advantages. Enhanced senses and other means of getting around invisibility also become more common.

On the other hand, abilities that directly replace other abilities can become problematic. The pricing of Damage Reduction, for example, scales poorly. Would I rather have 50% Damage Reduction for 20 points, or +20 PD?

In a 12 DC, 25 defense game, the standard target takes 17 points from a hit. Drop his defenses by 20 to buy the Damage Reduction and he takes 18.5 - pretty comparable.

What if he buys 25% Dam Red? Drops his defenses to 10, so he takes an average of 20.

Make that a 20 DC game with average defenses of 50, though. The average hit does 20 STUN. Drop PD by 20 and buy 50% Dam Red and now about 20 gets through - perfect.

What about 25% reduction for 10 points? Now he takes 22.5 STUN on average. Still close.

What if we use 75% for 40 points? Now only 15 STUN gets through from an average hit - a 25% reduction.

Obviously, the higher the average attack, the more damage Damage Reduction prevents, so the more valuable it becomes compared to +X defenses.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 9th, '09, 05:48 AM

Kdansky

Feb 9th, '09, 06:05 AM

The Main Man

Feb 9th, '09, 08:13 AM

...which is all included in the Resource Kit...
That's what I was thinking of when I was reading Chris Goodwin's description.

So now I know.:)

Speaking of which I need a new GM's screen...

Balabanto

Feb 9th, '09, 12:32 PM

Well, Hugh, let's start with the type of fantasy game you're playing. I'm not really a fan of everyone using teleport to go all over the place as a GM. Especially in a fantasy game, it can really screw things up.

1) Teleportation is instantaneous. It either makes the PC's superior because they always get there first, or the bad guys superior because they have it too.

2) It's harder to out-think teleportation than it is any other form of movement for the purposes of scenario design. Now, if you're going to run your game totally dramatically, this isn't a problem, but it grants PC's a huge number of tactical advantages that other forms of movement just don't have for the purposes of transportation.

3) If the bad guys have it too, it radically increases the cosmicness of the game. Overuse of teleport on the part of the GM leads to complaints from players, because use of teleport means the bad guys almost always escape, to god knows where because you can't see them fleeing. Players want their showdowns and they want them now. If no one can teleport, then it's fair, but players apparently get very upset when characters vanish under their noses or they don't get to decide when a confrontation is going to happen.

4) ESPECIALLY in Fantasy Games, it gives a sense of "What do you mean he has it too?" In superhero games and science fiction settings, this is just part of the genre and they have to suck it up. But in fantasy, this ability should be SEVERELY restricted, if not disallowed altogether. The key element in fantasy stories is the Journey. I don't know if you've read "The Hero With A Thousand Faces," but you should. The more mythological your genre, the less teleportation you should allow.

ghost-angel

Feb 9th, '09, 01:11 PM

I always found it weird that people think Megascale translates to Anywhere Which Is At Least 1" (10k or so) Away, With Perfect Aim.

If you buy Teleportation Megascale in my game, the GM decides where in the hex you stop. The bigger your hex, the less accurate and the more annoyance/danger. That should be clarified better.

Megascale mentions you have to perceive the target you're aiming for - if you can perceive it than I think you should hit it (i.e. "perfect aim").

And your statement demonstrates why Hex should go away, because you're not in a big hex, you're moving a long distance.

ghost-angel

Feb 9th, '09, 01:15 PM

Introducing scaled points is a really really really bad idea.

It'll cause more problems than it solves. Maybe the GM set high point totals and high AP caps (or none!) because he wants a lot of power.

A overly large amount of time and space would have to be dedicated to when, how and why to scale costs. Definitely not worth the trouble - let the GM police their game for possibly issues with Powers and costs and what not.

SteveZilla

Feb 9th, '09, 05:55 PM

I always found it weird that people think Megascale translates to Anywhere Which Is At Least 1" (10k or so) Away, With Perfect Aim.

I don't believe 5ER says that (IIRC, it does say something close to what "people think Megascale translates to"). And there's also the point GA made about being able to perceive where you're going.

If you buy Teleportation Megascale in my game, the GM decides where in the hex you stop. The bigger your hex, the less accurate and the more annoyance/danger. That should be clarified better.

Well, that would be a house rule of yours, since (presumably) you are the GM in your games. ;)

IMO it sounds good for Teleportation, but IMO it breaks down for modes of transportation that allows for more "course correction" as the character travels -- like Flight and Running (which weren't mentioned).

Greywind

Feb 9th, '09, 06:23 PM

...which is why most opt for "fixed locations" on long teleports...

SteveZilla

Feb 9th, '09, 06:44 PM

...which is why most opt for "fixed locations" on long teleports...

I meant to mention that. I had to reload the reply page, and lost that bit. Rep for you for mentioning it. :)

... After I give Rep to some others first, apparently.

ghost-angel

Feb 9th, '09, 06:49 PM

Got him for you.

Markdoc

Feb 10th, '09, 01:12 AM

Why? To my mind, such an ability is a game simplifier. If the gaming group doesn't want to play out overland travel, this provides an out at a reasonably inexpensive cost. How different is "You cast your Teleport spell and the party arrives in Northern Ridge" from "The barge takes you as far as it can in a week's travel, after which four days' hard ride brings you to Northern Ridge"?

If the group prefers to play out those overland journeys, the GM has only to decide he won't allow that construct. Regardless of whether the Heroes arrive in Northern Ridge in five minutes or travel for five months, the events of the scenario will only start once they have arrived anyway.

The problem I have is more a question of setting design. If long distance teleport is readily (or even quasi-readily) available, it's going to have massive effects on society: not just transport, but also economics and miltary tactics.
For example, how do you besiege a fortress when there's a portal that allows the defender to shuttle food water and fresh troops in and out? If you allow that, then sieges become impossible. If instead you allow - for example - mages with enough suppress mojo to do an area efect suppress and shut that down (frequently enough that it's a real danger) then you also have decided the game can feature high points magic...

It's fun to design a medieval-modern society where such things exist: the two rival "Gothick Empires" that my game world is named for are actually like that - the Emperor and Archon are immortal, talk to their ministers and spies every day via telepathic link, move from palace to palace around the empire by teleport as casually as walking from room to room and command armies that include walking siege engines, flying castles and squadrons of dragon-riders. Wealth lords and merchants have access to much of the same magi-technology. But you know, that's not really a low fantasy game.

Ruleswise, there's nothing wrong with that and fun-wise, there's nothing wrong either (Personally, I love games like that and have run one where the players were all high point immortals): but such games resemble Star Hero more than Fantasy Hero ("Any sufficiently explained magic is indistinguishable from technology") and the GM and players should be up for it.

Yes and no. In a 120 AP game, more characters will have affects desolid and/or SFX to target the Desolid character. Their also more likely to have variable SFX and/or variable advantages. Enhanced senses and other means of getting around invisibility also become more common.

On the other hand, abilities that directly replace other abilities can become problematic. The pricing of Damage Reduction, for example, scales poorly. Would I rather have 50% Damage Reduction for 20 points, or +20 PD?

In a 12 DC, 25 defense game, the standard target takes 17 points from a hit. Drop his defenses by 20 to buy the Damage Reduction and he takes 18.5 - pretty comparable.

What if he buys 25% Dam Red? Drops his defenses to 10, so he takes an average of 20.

Make that a 20 DC game with average defenses of 50, though. The average hit does 20 STUN. Drop PD by 20 and buy 50% Dam Red and now about 20 gets through - perfect.

What about 25% reduction for 10 points? Now he takes 22.5 STUN on average. Still close.

What if we use 75% for 40 points? Now only 15 STUN gets through from an average hit - a 25% reduction.

Obviously, the higher the average attack, the more damage Damage Reduction prevents, so the more valuable it becomes compared to +X defenses.

Yes and no - as your examples make clear, Damage reduction actually scales pretty well: you needed to go to a 20 DC game with 50 Defences to see a significant difference - and you forgot that the guy with 75% damage reduction may only be taking 15 STUN - but with 10 DEF, he's also taking 2 BOD from every average attack. That's a pretty serious tradeoff for a benefit of 7 stun .... So even in a high powered Campaign, Damage reduction actually works pretty well - you need to get into Cosmic Power (TM) territory before there's a real benefit to it.

Your last sentence is correct - but it's a largely hypothetical concern. I've never found characters employing Damage Reduction to be abusive, even when there's a significant investment in points, precisely because the tradeoffs inevitably seem to involve either abnormally high defences - but correspondingly, weak attacks - or spending average amounts on Defences - which means running the risk of taking BOD from higher powered attacks. If anything, Damage reduction is too expensive - there's little incentive to buy it in lower powered games.

cheers, Mark

cheers, Mark

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 10th, '09, 04:48 AM

If instead you allow - for example - mages with enough suppress mojo to do an area effect suppress and shut that down (frequently enough that it's a real danger) then you also have decided the game can feature high points magic...
While I agree with your general point, using Megascale for the suppress area and duration (as for the teleport distance) should keep the point cost down:

"Sir, we have been informed that a group of adventurers are using a Scroll of Translocation to smuggle food into the besieged castle and people out of it."

"No problem, I will ask our battlemage to use his Scroll of Translocation Prevention on the castle."

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 10th, '09, 05:40 AM

Well, Hugh, let's start with the type of fantasy game you're playing. I'm not really a fan of everyone using teleport to go all over the place as a GM. Especially in a fantasy game, it can really screw things up.

The problem I have is more a question of setting design. If long distance teleport is readily (or even quasi-readily) available, it's going to have massive effects on society: not just transport, but also economics and miltary tactics.

For example, how do you besiege a fortress when there's a portal that allows the defender to shuttle food water and fresh troops in and out? If you allow that, then sieges become impossible. If instead you allow - for example - mages with enough suppress mojo to do an area efect suppress and shut that down (frequently enough that it's a real danger) then you also have decided the game can feature high points magic...

I've bolded certain comments for empahasis. The GM needs to decide what makes sense for his game. That doesn't mean megascale, teleport or both are priced incorrectly. It may, however, mean that they are wrong for your game.

Just as, if I want a setting where magic is subtle and requires extensive time to be effective, I won't be allowing Fireballs. Doesn't mean Energy Blast or Explosion are underpriced, or that "extra time" isn't a large enough limitation. It means quick combat magic is not right for the feel I want in my game.

1) Teleportation is instantaneous. It either makes the PC's superior because they always get there first, or the bad guys superior because they have it too.

That, too, is a setting design decision. If only the PC's have it, then they are superior in that way to the opposition. It shouldn't take long for others to figure out they want this capability - now how will they get it from the PC's? If the bad guys also have it, then it changes the scale of the game. Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos novels feature regular teleportation. It changes the nature of the challenges. They are no less challenging. But the characters can traverse the continent rather than the neighbourhood in the course of a scenario.

2) It's harder to out-think teleportation than it is any other form of movement for the purposes of scenario design. Now, if you're going to run your game totally dramatically, this isn't a problem, but it grants PC's a huge number of tactical advantages that other forms of movement just don't have for the purposes of transportation.

And I believe I said that, if the group wants long distance travel played out in more detail than "after X period of time, you get there", then the answer is to disallow megascale travel in that game. But that doesn't make it underpriced in games where the play style, setting or both make this an acceptable power.

3) If the bad guys have it too, it radically increases the cosmicness of the game. Overuse of teleport on the part of the GM leads to complaints from players, because use of teleport means the bad guys almost always escape, to god knows where because you can't see them fleeing. Players want their showdowns and they want them now. If no one can teleport, then it's fair, but players apparently get very upset when characters vanish under their noses or they don't get to decide when a confrontation is going to happen.

4) ESPECIALLY in Fantasy Games, it gives a sense of "What do you mean he has it too?" In superhero games and science fiction settings, this is just part of the genre and they have to suck it up. But in fantasy, this ability should be SEVERELY restricted, if not disallowed altogether. The key element in fantasy stories is the Journey. I don't know if you've read "The Hero With A Thousand Faces," but you should. The more mythological your genre, the less teleportation you should allow.

Setting, game style and tone again. My common answer to "What do you mean he has it too?" is "What makes you think your brand-new starting character has a spell no one else has ever thought of?" If you're playing a game where the characters are head and shoulders superior to their opponents, sure they'll have lots of abilities the opposition lacks. But that's not the structure of a lot of games.

I typically address questions of potentially unbalanced builds by group discussion and a group decision, with the proviso that it is either permissible or banned for PC and NPC alike. If you want the ability to 'port out of a bad situation, don't whine when the opposition has that same ability. If you want the ability to prevent the opposition from 'porting away, them don't whine when the opposition can prevent you from doing the same.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 10th, '09, 05:52 AM

Yes and no - as your examples make clear, Damage reduction actually scales pretty well: you needed to go to a 20 DC game with 50 Defences to see a significant difference - and you forgot that the guy with 75% damage reduction may only be taking 15 STUN - but with 10 DEF, he's also taking 2 BOD from every average attack. That's a pretty serious tradeoff for a benefit of 7 stun .... So even in a high powered Campaign, Damage reduction actually works pretty well - you need to get into Cosmic Power (TM) territory before there's a real benefit to it.

My example assumed both non-resistant damage reduction and non-resistant defenses, so the characters are taking significant BOD from killing attacks either way. We could certainly bump examples up to higher levels. But I think you nail it below...

Your last sentence is correct - but it's a largely hypothetical concern. I've never found characters employing Damage Reduction to be abusive, even when there's a significant investment in points, precisely because the tradeoffs inevitably seem to involve either abnormally high defences - but correspondingly, weak attacks - or spending average amounts on Defences - which means running the risk of taking BOD from higher powered attacks. If anything, Damage reduction is too expensive - there's little incentive to buy it in lower powered games.

This is scaling in reverse. In lower powered games, there's no viable example as the characters can't afford the points for damage reduction.

In a 12DC game, consider two characters. The first spends 60 points on 75% Damage Reduction, Resistant, Physical. Let's give him 10 PD. We'll even make it Resistant. From a typical 12d6 attack, he takes 8 STUN.

The second character doesn't buy Damage Reduction. Instead, he buys +40 rPD. Now he has 50 PD and takes no damage from the typical 12d6 attack.

Damage Reduction is superior only when we hit about 64 STUN (14 points to the 50 PD character, 13.5 to the Dam Red character). That's above average for an 18d6 attack. If we assume the Defense player realizes he doesn't need all 50 PD to be Resistant, he can bump the scale even higher.

Of course, 75% only shaves off another 25% of damage taken. The first 30 points shaved off 50%. The first 15 points shaved off 25%. Double the cost to add the same effect is a geometric progression not seen elsewhere in Hero.

If we assume the same 12DC, and one character will buy 15 defenses and 50% damage reduction, he takes 13.5 STUN from a typical attack. His teammate can buy 35 rPD and forego damage reduction. He only takes 7 STUN from a typical attack. Now we break even at a 55 STUN hit, taking 20 STUN each. That's not quite a 16d6 average attack, still pretty high compared to the 12 DC we expect to encounter. And, again, the PD character might realize he doesn't need the whole 35 points to be resistant.

I've never found Damage Reduction to be overpowered, because spending the same points on defenses will yield a much more powerful result. But it still doesn't scale well.

Markdoc

Feb 10th, '09, 06:42 AM

While I agree with your general point, using Megascale for the suppress area and duration (as for the teleport distance) should keep the point cost down:

"Sir, we have been informed that a group of adventurers are using a Scroll of Translocation to smuggle food into the besieged castle and people out of it."

"No problem, I will ask our battlemage to use his Scroll of Translocation Prevention on the castle."

- Klaus

Sure. But then the players will reasonably expect that they can get their hands on megascale suppress spells - and magic of similar power. Again, as I noted in my post, you can play perfectly viable (and fun!) games this way: but it's no longer anything approaching low fantasy: it's high fantasy. The two things are very, very different.

After all, why not use his scroll of weakness instead - a megascale STR drain would involve fewer points and will obviate the need for a siege - the castle can simply be stormed while the defenders are too weak to move in their armour and unable to use their weapons effectively ...

Hugh asks "how is it different if the players teleport or take a barge and then ride?" And you illustrate exactly how different the two options are here: if the players teleport, then that automatically makes a statement about how the game world works and introduces, more or less by default, other magical considerations.

Again, I stress, there's nothing wrong with this: but it makes a huge difference in how the game operates. It's not just a question of swapping out a barge with a teleportal - you are making fundamental changes in the way players will interact with the world.

cheers, Mark

nexus

Feb 10th, '09, 08:15 AM

Some people keep using Fantasy Games as if there is only one allowable style. Exalted, A Song of Ice and Fire, Tekumel and Forgotten Realms are all Fantasy Games but with very different styles and sensibilities. It's the prerogative of the gm to decide what would appropriate for the setting he wants to create.

Vulcan

Feb 10th, '09, 09:54 AM

An interesting issue came up in the 5E Rules discussion: the matter of buying back vs. Physical Limitations.

The examples given were a crippled super (who sold back 5" of his running, but has flight) vs. Daredevil (who has to take Physical Limitaion "Blind" and then buy his radar sense). And the question is, is this fair to DD? I don't think so - Captain Cripple got 10 extra points with little-to-no loss in utility, while DD spent 27 points and still can't see colors.

5E set prices for all 5 standard senses, should the 6E rules allow someone to sell them back rather than just take a physical limitation, so DD then gets 25 points to help offset his radar; or should they require Captain Cripple to take a physical limitation and not get the extra 10 points to help offset his flight?

Edit: I see someone else is bringing this up under disads too...

bigbywolfe

Feb 10th, '09, 03:36 PM

Hugh: Must spread Rep, yadda yadda. You nailed the point.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 11th, '09, 02:21 AM

Of course, 75% only shaves off another 25% of damage taken. The first 30 points shaved off 50%. The first 15 points shaved off 25%. Double the cost to add the same effect is a geometric progression not seen elsewhere in Hero.
It's 30 points to halve damage (reduce to 50%), then 30 points to halve it again (reduce to 25%). This progression goes well in hand with other Hero powers where you pay linearly for each doubling or halving (e.g. of size).

Interpolating this progression should give 30% (rather than 25%) reduction at 15 points and 65% (~2/3) reduction at 45 points.

If we assume the same 12DC, and one character will buy 15 defenses and 50% damage reduction, he takes 13.5 STUN from a typical attack. His teammate can buy 35 rPD and forego damage reduction. He only takes 7 STUN from a typical attack. Now we break even at a 55 STUN hit, taking 20 STUN each. That's not quite a 16d6 average attack, still pretty high compared to the 12 DC we expect to encounter. And, again, the PD character might realize he doesn't need the whole 35 points to be resistant.
Damage Reduction also reduces NND and AVLD damage, which is worth something.

I've never found Damage Reduction to be overpowered, because spending the same points on defenses will yield a much more powerful result. But it still doesn't scale well.
I agree that DR doesn't scale well. We should look into alternatives, e.g. a limitation to defenses that can only absorb half the incoming damage, or some such.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 11th, '09, 04:51 AM

Damage Reduction also reduces NND and AVLD damage, which is worth something.

Sure. It also leaves the character taking damage from relatively minor attacks which **plink** off his teammates, but it allows him to weather a single very large hit that would KO his teammate.

Markdoc

Feb 11th, '09, 06:16 AM

I agree that DR doesn't scale well. We should look into alternatives, e.g. a limitation to defenses that can only absorb half the incoming damage, or some such.

We actually experimented with this last one, basing the concept on Armor piercing (we also played around with scaling armour piercing, so that you could dump Find Weakness and just buy multiple levels of armour piercing).

Neither actually worked very well. Allowing people to buy double armour-piercing on their attacks (and thus reduce the defender's DEF to a quarter) sounds really unbalancing, but in fact it turned out to be teh suck. A standard attack ends up not only doing more stun at virtually any level, but also (counterintuitively) more BOD as well and of course does more KNB. Also I was suprised, when you do this analysis, how puny AP is - even a single level of AP is almost always inferior to a straight attack. Mathematically, there's a good case for making AP a +1/4 advantage.

If you do this, then single AP attacks do generally less stun until you are attacking targets with about 30 DEF or more, and double AP attacks do less stun until you are hitting targets of 40 DEF or more. However, they have correspondingly greater chances to do BOD. Here's the calculation.

Stun vs DEF.

d6........cost/damage..........10…..20…..30…..40…..50
Normal
5..........25/18....................8
10........50/35....................25…..15…..5
15........75/53...................43…..33…..23…..13…..3
20........100/70.................60…..50…..40…..30…..20

1x AP
4..........25/14...................9…...4
8..........50/28..................23…..18…..13……8…...8
12..........75/42...............37…….32…..27…..22…..22
16.........100/56...............51…..46…..41…..36…..36

2 x AP
3............23/11……...........8..…..6.…..3……..1
6.5..........49/23……........20…..18…..15…..13…..10
10..........75/35.............32…..30…..27…..25…..22
13.5.......101/48...........44…..42…..39…..37…..34

Bod vs DEF
d6........cost/damage..........10…..20…..30…..40…..50

5............25/5
10..........50/10
15..........75/15..................5
20..........100/20...............10

1 x AP
4............25/4
8............50/8...................3
12..........75/12..................7…..2
16..........100/16...............11…..6…..1

2 x AP
3..........23/3
6.5..........49/7..................4
10..........75/10.................7…..2…..2
13.5..........101/14...........11…..6…..6…..4…..1

I mentioned earlier in the thread (or maybe another one) that we could simplify the whole attack imbroglio by
1. Making AP +1/4 - it cancels out hardened (at +1/4) or vice versa. Since defences cost (at base) half attacks, this maintains the "defences are half price of attacks" meme.
2. Expanding AVLD into three categories for common, rare and and very rare Defences (at +1/2, +1 and +2) but letting them do BOD as a default. NND then becomes a limited form of AVLD, which only does stun and is all or nothing.
3. Tossing out KA.

That way all attacks use xd6, prorate with STR normally and avoid the whole "how many DC can you add" issue. Killing attacks become AVLD (the defence is "any resistant defence"). They do less stun, and less BOD than regular attacks, but are only stopped by resistant defences. With the application of AP you trade off STUN damage for BOD damage (making them more effective against forcewalls, Entangles and things you want to break).

This actually opens up more options than we have now allowing you to tune attacks to do more or less stun, while simplifying combat (a single dice mechanism, removing the adding damage questions, and attacks apply against a single defence total: not BOD vs one DEF and STUN vs another).

As for a limitation on DEF to make it absorb some (but not all) of an attack, this quickly turned out to be unworkable. A defence that stops half the attack that goes through should cost the same as a defence with half as much DEF, right? In that case, which not buy just half as much DEF? The tiny advantage you get (for example when resisting suppress and similar) is more than compensated for by the major disadvantage that you have a power that has twice the active points as something that gives the same DEF.

The only houserule that survived from playtesting variant DEF concepts was what we call "cinematic toughness" - a limitation on DEF that always lets the first point of damage through (-1/4) to reflect the movie hero who can get shot/stabbed/thrown off a building and takes an injury that persists and even seems to hamper him, but which is far less hampering than reality would dictate. As it was, we left damage reduction alone. Although (in theory) it doesn't scale well, in practice it scales pretty well (at least out to 30+ d6: we never had bigger attacks than 30-some dice) and it's simple to moderate in-game.

While I appreciate elegant game design, I'd never dump a useful and simple mechanism purely for aesthetic reasons.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Feb 11th, '09, 06:37 AM

Sure. It also leaves the character taking damage from relatively minor attacks which **plink** off his teammates, but it allows him to weather a single very large hit that would KO his teammate.

Right: and that's exactly what I use damage reduction to mimic: a character who takes damage from most attacks, but who is hard to KO. A classic example would be Wolverine vs Colossus. Wolvie's easy to knock down but remarkably hard to keep down. Colossus OTOH is very hard to hurt, but if you can put him down, he doesn't seem to get back up any faster than his CON score dictates.

It's why I am not bothered that Damage reduction doesn't scale exactly the same way as other defences - it's intended to work differently. As such it remans a hugely useful tool in the toolbox and one which mechanistically is easy to work with. I'd certainly oppose getting rid of it unless we could come up with a workable replacement that gives the same dynamic. That's not easy: we played around with this quite a lot, before deciding to keep DR as it is.

cheers, Mark

schir1964

Feb 11th, '09, 06:57 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 11th, '09, 07:03 AM

I mentioned earlier in the thread (or maybe another one) that we could simplify the whole attack imbroglio by
1. Making AP +1/4 - it cancels out hardened (at +1/4) or vice versa. Since defences cost (at base) half attacks, this maintains the "defences are half price of attacks" meme.
2. Expanding AVLD into three categories for common, rare and and very rare Defences (at +1/2, +1 and +2) but letting them do BOD as a default. NND then becomes a limited form of AVLD, which only does stun and is all or nothing.
3. Tossing out KA.

That way all attacks use xd6, prorate with STR normally and avoid the whole "how many DC can you add" issue. Killing attacks become AVLD (the defence is "any resistant defence"). They do less stun, and less BOD than regular attacks, but are only stopped by resistant defences. With the application of AP you trade off STUN damage for BOD damage (making them more effective against forcewalls, Entangles and things you want to break).
Seems workable. Only problem I can see is that it becomes harder to figure how much STR you need to add 1 DC to Killing Attacks. If Killing is a +½ advantage, that's 7½ STR per +1 DC for KA weapons, but 5 STR per +1 DC for HA weapons. For simplicity's sake, I would like these two to remain the same. Not a biggie, though.

As for a limitation on DEF to make it absorb some (but not all) of an attack, this quickly turned out to be unworkable. A defence that stops half the attack that goes through should cost the same as a defence with half as much DEF, right? In that case, which not buy just half as much DEF? The tiny advantage you get (for example when resisting suppress and similar) is more than compensated for by the major disadvantage that you have a power that has twice the active points as something that gives the same DEF.
Depends on how you do it. If you e.g. apply the limited DEF last, you will get full value from it if the damage that gets through the other DEF is at least twice as high as the limited DEF. Let's say you have DEF/limDEF 20/10. If 10 STUN gets through the first 20 DEF, half of the remainder (5 STUN) gets through the limited DEF, making it worth the same as +5 DEF (except its more likely that some BODY will get through). If OTOH 20 STUN gets through the first 20 DEF, the limited DEF absorbs 10 STUN, making it worth the same as +10 DEF. This suggests a limitation of -1/2 - you get between half and full value.

The only houserule that survived from playtesting variant DEF concepts was what we call "cinematic toughness" - a limitation on DEF that always lets the first point of damage through (-1/4) to reflect the movie hero who can get shot/stabbed/thrown off a building and takes an injury that persists and even seems to hamper him, but which is far less hampering than reality would dictate. As it was, we left damage reduction alone. Although (in theory) it doesn't scale well, in practice it scales pretty well (at least out to 30+ d6: we never had bigger attacks than 30-some dice) and it's simple to moderate in-game.
If this gives the same limitation for 2 DEF and 30 DEF, it seems very broken. This would be better suited as a Susceptibility: Takes damage from attacks that wouldn't otherwise do damage.

Perhaps the solution is to quite simply remove DR from the game. There already are things that reduce damage (DEF) or make you less susceptible to damage (higher BODY, CON, STUN, and REC).

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 11th, '09, 08:33 AM

It's why I am not bothered that Damage reduction doesn't scale exactly the same way as other defences - it's intended to work differently. As such it remans a hugely useful tool in the toolbox and one which mechanistically is easy to work with. I'd certainly oppose getting rid of it unless we could come up with a workable replacement that gives the same dynamic. That's not easy: we played around with this quite a lot, before deciding to keep DR as it is.

I'm not in favour of eliminating the mechanic, but I think its costing needs to be reviewed. It doesn't scale well, but that's true of anything that's an "absolute" in any form.

I'd like to see Damage Reduction extrapolated to "invulnerable" as well. 15 points - 25% reduction to all physical attacks. 30 points - 50% (no change to these). 45 points - 75% reduction. 60 points - 100% reduction.

I'm not sold on those levels (at 100%, you don't need to buy any defenses, which changes the balance a bit, so maybe it should cost a bit more - maybe 75 points for 100%), but it's a basis for playtesting. For 45 points, you could add 30 rDEF or, say, 10 rDEF and 30 nonresistant. Tack that on to the typical 10 res defenses and the character could have had 50 PD, r20 - enough to stop most 12 DC attacks anyway.

Could "immune to physical attacks" be unbalancing? Sure. So could a lot of things we can already do. Put the tool in the toolbox and let us decide when it should and should not be used. And give it a STOP sign, of course.

Immune to physical and energy would cost 150 points - that's a lot. And adjustment powers and mental powers still get through.

Balabanto

Feb 11th, '09, 09:46 AM

Hyper-Man

Feb 11th, '09, 10:40 AM

Folks, go to the A Powers thread for an alternate view of Damage Reduction that I posted some time ago. I'll link it below.

My problem with DR is that it doesn't scale correctly. I run a low powered game, but I have a friend who runs a high powered game, and Damage Reduction is disproportionately useful in it.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1545822#post1545822

The only consistent way to make it scale would be to base its cost on building it like a Naked Advantage on STUN and BODY.

That way a character with higher amounts of those Characteristics has to pay more for DR.

In light of the knowledge that Figured Characteristics are not likely to appear in 6e I doubt that such a 'figured cost' method would be implemented though.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 11th, '09, 01:59 PM

It's 30 points to halve damage (reduce to 50%), then 30 points to halve it again (reduce to 25%). This progression goes well in hand with other Hero powers where you pay linearly for each doubling or halving (e.g. of size).

Interpolating this progression should give 30% (rather than 25%) reduction at 15 points and 65% (~2/3) reduction at 45 points.
That depends on how you interpolate. I prefer to interpolate* that each doubling of points gives you an additional 25% reduction. Thus:

Starting with 10 points for 25% reduction,
double to 20 for 50% reduction,
double to 40 for 75% reduction,
double to 80 for 100% reduction.

Then it's 50% more cost for Resistant.

I also allow in my games further interpolations between the above values:
30 points for 66.667% reduction. (1/3 damage)
50 points for 83.333% reduction. (1/6 Damage)
60 points for 90% reduction. (1/10 damage)
70 points for 95% reduction. (1/20 damage)

Reductions of more than 75% are subject to intense scrutiny, and are usually required to be limited in their SFX, such as Only vs Fire.

*To be precise, this is extrapolation, not interpolation.

Greywind

Feb 11th, '09, 05:26 PM

Honestly, I never want to see absolutes in the system.

Markdoc

Feb 12th, '09, 03:29 AM

With this system, when you say, "Killing attacks become AVLD (the defense is "any resistant defense")", do you mean the SFX Definition of the defense or Mechanic Definition of the defense?

- Christopher Mullins

Mechanic. AVLD goes against defences of some sort. If your chosen defence for an AVLD EB is Flash Defence, then you subtract Flash Defence from your damage, instead of ED. AVLD going against "any resistant defence" would be common. Specifying "Force Field" or "Armour" would be rare (maybe uncommon is a better word) and specifying "Forcewall" would be very rare. These are all power-based and give a specific degree of defence.

NND works somewhat differently since it's all or nothing: it doesn't go against a defence mechanic. I'd suggest that AVLD powers which have no normal (meaning mechanistic) defence must be by definition "all or nothing" (since there is nothing to subtract from damage).

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Feb 12th, '09, 03:54 AM

Seems workable. Only problem I can see is that it becomes harder to figure how much STR you need to add 1 DC to Killing Attacks. If Killing is a +½ advantage, that's 7½ STR per +1 DC for KA weapons, but 5 STR per +1 DC for HA weapons. For simplicity's sake, I would like these two to remain the same. Not a biggie, though.

Technically speaking, you should already prorate them. I do in all my games, and it's no biggie, since you generally only do the calculation once, at Chargen. So there's no change there.

Depends on how you do it. If you e.g. apply the limited DEF last, you will get full value from it if the damage that gets through the other DEF is at least twice as high as the limited DEF. Let's say you have DEF/limDEF 20/10. If 10 STUN gets through the first 20 DEF, half of the remainder (5 STUN) gets through the limited DEF, making it worth the same as +5 DEF (except its more likely that some BODY will get through). If OTOH 20 STUN gets through the first 20 DEF, the limited DEF absorbs 10 STUN, making it worth the same as +10 DEF. This suggests a limitation of -1/2 - you get between half and full value.

Yeah, I'd thought about mixed full/partial DEF, but the problem is still that it seems like a lot of trouble to go to for little actual utility. The guy who bought 17 DEF (same cost as your example, using a limitation of -1/2) overall gets much more utility for the same price - he takes nothing from the first attack, and 3 STUN more from the second, with much less risk of BOD going through. I don't think it's a bad idea for a custom limitation, but as a core rule, it's far less useful or generally applicable than Damage reduction.

If this gives the same limitation for 2 DEF and 30 DEF, it seems very broken. This would be better suited as a Susceptibility: Takes damage from attacks that wouldn't otherwise do damage.

Nope: this is one of these things that looks broken, but in practice isn't. The reason being that if you have 2 DEF you can routinely expect to take BOD damage: the tiny cost break you get gives you a tiny disadvantage. If you have 30 DEF, you can routinely expect to almost never take BOD damage - but with this limitation, you can expect to take BOD every time you get hit. You get a much larger price break, but you receive a much sterner (relative) penalty. Essentially, this works the same as the "luck" limitation on Combat Luck. In that case your all of your DEF works normally - most of the time. Sometimes however, it doesn't work at all (like activation rolls). In this case, most of your DEF works all of the time - but some of it doesn't work at all.

You could of course also do it as a susceptibility, but that has an even worse pricing problem: for a character who routinely takes BOD Damage, this is nearly equivalent to having one less DEF. For a character with a high DEF, it's a major hit to effectiveness. To make this work, we'd need to rewrite the susceptibility rules.

QUOTE=Klaus Mogensen;1778655]Perhaps the solution is to quite simply remove DR from the game. There already are things that reduce damage (DEF) or make you less susceptible to damage (higher BODY, CON, STUN, and REC).[/QUOTE]

Not really an option for me: it's simply too useful, and as noted, the concerns over scaling are more theoretical than practical. Can you point to me a single abusive build using this power?

It's clearly not over-priced, or people wouldn't buy it (and they do: I've had two highly effective characters based around Damage Reduction myself). And it's clearly not under-priced, otherwise it would be a lot more common and characters using it as a defence would dominate combat more (in general, they don't: in most situations DEF is simply better - however Damage Reduction shines in a few specific situations: the really big hit, the hit that goes around specific defences, etc). As I noted, Damage reduction doesn't scale like DEF, but that's fine, because it doesn't work like DEF either. It's a different beastie.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Feb 12th, '09, 04:10 AM

I'm not in favour of eliminating the mechanic, but I think its costing needs to be reviewed. It doesn't scale well, but that's true of anything that's an "absolute" in any form.

Yeah, we did play around with the costs, but after some tinkering left them where they were. Moving the costs around ether made the power too powerful - dropping increments to 10, for example made the power too cheap. Raising them to 20 made them too expensive. Neither made them scale better.

We even tinkered with "1 XP buys you 1% reduction" but that added complexity in play ("I have 42% damage reduction - how much is 42% of 37?") and the costs were way out of line for utility. :D

I'm not keen on the idea of 100% Damage reduction, but I wouldn't throw up at the idea if it was introduced. I think Phil's suggestion of doubling cost for each increment - starting from a lower base - is a good one. I do recall we playtested it, but I cannot recall why we didn't adopt that as a house rule - possibly because the practical difference was small, if you disallow 100% DR.

cheers, Mark

Hugh Neilson

Feb 12th, '09, 04:51 AM

Honestly, I never want to see absolutes in the system.

So get rid of damage reduction ("takes only half" is just as absolute as "takes none"), life support and desolid, all of which are all or nothing. Many enhanced senses will have to go as well (fixed cost for the ability to detect, sense, have range, analyze, target, etc.). We can't keep the skills that are absolute either, like the various [forget the name] combat skills that prevent multiple attacker bonuses, etc. Missile deflection and reflection are also absolutes.

Well, the book will be shorter, at least.

Yeah, we did play around with the costs, but after some tinkering left them where they were. Moving the costs around ether made the power too powerful - dropping increments to 10, for example made the power too cheap. Raising them to 20 made them too expensive. Neither made them scale better.

We even tinkered with "1 XP buys you 1% reduction" but that added complexity in play ("I have 42% damage reduction - how much is 42% of 37?") and the costs were way out of line for utility. :D

I'm not keen on the idea of 100% Damage reduction, but I wouldn't throw up at the idea if it was introduced. I think Phil's suggestion of doubling cost for each increment - starting from a lower base - is a good one. I do recall we playtested it, but I cannot recall why we didn't adopt that as a house rule - possibly because the practical difference was small, if you disallow 100% DR.

I don't think 25% or 50% are mispriced, but I think 75% is where the pricing starts to fall out of line - double the cost to boost the benefit by 50%. If I had no defenses at all, I'd be taking 21 STUN and 6 BOD from a 12d6 attack with 50% resistant damage reduction. I could buy that up to 75% and take 10.5 and 3, or I could buy 20 rDEF and take 11 and no BOD. If I could take an extra 0.5 STUN to avoid taking 3 BOD, it seems very worthwhile from a character survival perspective.

Or I could buy 10 rDEF and 15 normal and take 8.5 and no BOD, but be a bit more exposed to KA's, or make it +30 def, none resistant, so it's 6 and 0, but I'm at far greater risk from KA's. And I could also spend only 20 to buy my Reduction up to 75% but nonresistant on the last 25%.

Still, the doubling increments are probably not wholly out of line, getting to 100% for 80 points (120 points resistant).

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 12th, '09, 05:09 AM

it's simply too useful, and as noted, the concerns over scaling are more theoretical than practical. Can you point to me a single abusive build using this power?
I can start by pointing to Balanto's recent post:

I run a low powered game, but I have a friend who runs a high powered game, and Damage Reduction is disproportionately useful in it.
I haven't played in any really high-powered campaigns myself, but some friends of mine had one som years ago, and every single player character had at least 50% DR vs. physical and energy. You could argue that it simply is something all really powerful characters should have, same as the ability to survive in space. However, the costing of DR makes it a very poor choice for low-powered characters, even where it would thematically make sense.

There is, however, one simple way to make characters take less damage from attacks, which scales perfectly, and which is more flexible than DR:

If you buy twice as much CON, BODY, STUN, and REC, you effectively take half damage from all attacks. You can choose to increase some of these more than others in order to gain relatively greater protection from one aspect of damage, and you can buy some of them limited: "not vs. killing attacks", "only versus energy", etc.

This is possible within the current rules, without adding anything. Removing DR will thus not make any character concept impossible, but it will remove one of the near-absolutes from the game.

50% "simulated DR" versus all attacks for an otherwise normal human will require increasing CON and BODY from 10 to 20, STUN from 20 to 40, and REC from 4 to 8. With buy-backs of the figured ED and END, this costs 44 points, compared to 60 for 50% resistant DR vs. physical and energy. So "DR" will be cheaper for low-powered characters and more expensive for high-powered characters. The break-even lies around CON/BODY 15. The "simulated DR" will even protect versus EGO Attacks, which costs extra with DR.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 12th, '09, 05:25 AM

I don't think 25% or 50% are mispriced, but I think 75% is where the pricing starts to fall out of line - double the cost to boost the benefit by 50%.
I disagree. Pay 30 points to halve damage, pay 30 points to halve it again. Same price for the same benefit. The first 30 points halve any attack, whether it does 2 damage or 200; the second 30 points do the same thing. We're not talking about linear reduction, so it doesn't make sense to apply a linear cost.

If anything, it's the 25% DR that is mispriced. It should give something closer to 30% reduction at the price. A better progression might be:

10 points . x4/5 damage (-20%)
20 points . x2/3 damage (-33%)
30 points . x1/2 damage (-50%
40 points . x2/5 damage (-60%)
50 points . x1/3 damage (-67%)
60 points . x1/4 damage (-75%)
70 points . x1/5 damage (-80%)
80 points . x1/6 damage (-83%)
90 points . x1/8 damage (-88%)
100 points . x1/10 damage (-90%)
Etc.

Assuming of course that we aren't going to seek a version that scales better.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 12th, '09, 12:06 PM

I disagree. Pay 30 points to halve damage, pay 30 points to halve it again. Same price for the same benefit. The first 30 points halve any attack, whether it does 2 damage or 200; the second 30 points do the same thing. We're not talking about linear reduction, so it doesn't make sense to apply a linear cost.

If I pay $100 for four hour's work, I expect to get the other half of the day for another $100, not another two hours.

We're not talking about a linear reduction from 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% damage reduction. That's what makes it hard to price. We're talking about removing 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the damage taken. In effect, we're providing the target with a multiple of 1.33, 2, 4 or infinity to their STUN, BOD and CON for purposes of being Stunned, but only for the purpose of certain attack types.

If anything, it's the 25% DR that is mispriced. It should give something closer to 30% reduction at the price. A better progression might be:

10 points . x4/5 damage (-20%)
20 points . x2/3 damage (-33%)
30 points . x1/2 damage (-50%
40 points . x2/5 damage (-60%)
50 points . x1/3 damage (-67%)
60 points . x1/4 damage (-75%)
70 points . x1/5 damage (-80%)
80 points . x1/6 damage (-83%)
90 points . x1/8 damage (-88%)
100 points . x1/10 damage (-90%)
Etc.

If the attack would otherwise inflict 50 STUN, I'm paying:

10 points to remove 10 STUN
10 more to remove 6 2/3 STUN
10 more to remove 8 1/3 STUN
10 more to remove 5 STUN
10 more to remove 3 1/3 STUN
10 more to remove 1 1/6 STUN
10 more to remove 2 1/12 STUN
10 more to remove 1.25 STUN
etc.

Even if I accept diminishing returns (no other power structure gives me such clear diminishing returns), the blips at two points seem unreasonable.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 12th, '09, 12:11 PM

Honestly, I never want to see absolutes in the system.
Why not? I could certainly understand if you meant that you never want to *use* absolutes in the system, but why never *see*? Just because a tool is supplied in the toolkit doesn't mean you are forced to use it.

It's sort of like a vegetarian insisting that he never *see* anyone else eating meat.

Klaus Mogensen

Feb 12th, '09, 01:23 PM

If the attack would otherwise inflict 50 STUN, I'm paying:

10 points to remove 10 STUN
10 more to remove 6 2/3 STUN
10 more to remove 8 1/3 STUN
10 more to remove 5 STUN
10 more to remove 3 1/3 STUN
10 more to remove 1 1/6 STUN
10 more to remove 2 1/12 STUN
10 more to remove 1.25 STUN
etc.

Even if I accept diminishing returns (no other power structure gives me such clear diminishing returns), the blips at two points seem unreasonable.
Let's say you have 50% DR at a cost of 30. If an attack does 50 STUN, the 30 points you paid remove 25 STUN. However, if an attack does 25 STUN, the same 30 points you paid remove only 12 STUN. Is that unreasonable?

Let's say that you pay another 30 points to get 75% DR - two halvings. If an attack does 50 STUN, the first 30 points you paid remove 25 STUN. There are 25 STUN left, and the second 30 points you paid remove 12 STUN. This is no different than the above, except you remove the 25 and the 12 STUN in the same attack rather than in two different.

DR is very different from other defenses in that it removes (e.g.) half of any damage, no matter how big or how small. Hence you can't price the power according to how much STUN it removes in any particular instance. The are instances when a 75% DR removes no STUN, making it worthless, but there may be instances where it removes 100 STUN or more, making it very valuable indeed.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Feb 12th, '09, 03:16 PM

Let's say you have 50% DR at a cost of 30. If an attack does 50 STUN, the 30 points you paid remove 25 STUN. However, if an attack does 25 STUN, the same 30 points you paid remove only 12 STUN. Is that unreasonable?

The character who paid 30 points for 30 PD takes 20 from the first and none from the second. His last 5 PD generated no benefit from the second. Both abilities have less benefit against lower powered attacks. Fair enough.

Let's say that you pay another 30 points to get 75% DR - two halvings. If an attack does 50 STUN, the first 30 points you paid remove 25 STUN. There are 25 STUN left, and the second 30 points you paid remove 12 STUN. This is no different than the above, except you remove the 25 and the 12 STUN in the same attack rather than in two different.

The character who paid for 30 PD + 30 PD takes no damage whatsoever. The extra 30 points has not provided the same 30 points of benefit. Yet the first 15 points removed 12.5 STUN and the second 15 points removed the same 12.5 STUN.

Let's consider an attack. You pay 30 points to do 6d6. You pay another 30 points to do 12d6. Should you pay another 30 points to do 24d6?

DR is very different from other defenses in that it removes (e.g.) half of any damage, no matter how big or how small. Hence you can't price the power according to how much STUN it removes in any particular instance. The are instances when a 75% DR removes no STUN, making it worthless, but there may be instances where it removes 100 STUN or more, making it very valuable indeed.

There is a relative value between damage reduction and defenses which can only be evaluated if one knows the range of attacks the target is likely to be subjected to. If the average attack will do 200 STUN, 30 points for 1/2 damage reduction is cheap. If the average attack will do 20 STUN, 30 points for half damage reduction is ridiculous.

This doesn't make "base cost removes 25%, double that removes half, now double the total again for each additional halving" reasonable.