Jump to content

Hugh Neilson

HERO Member
  • Content count

    17,141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Hugh Neilson last won the day on July 2 2017

Hugh Neilson had the most liked content!

About Hugh Neilson

  • Rank
    SETAC Gadfly
  • Birthday 01/15/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  • Occupation
    Chartered Accountant/Tax Consultant
  1. Negative END and charges

    Greywind, where is your cite for a minimum 1 END cost per action? I think 6e V2 p 91 and 131 cover it, and they do not impose a minimum 1 END cost for all actions, only for specific actions (and explicitly NOT martial maneuvers which do not use STR). Is there something else in the rules that supports your argument?
  2. Negative END and charges

    No one is denying there is an END cost to the STR. There is no minimum 1 END cost to use a martial maneuver. From 6e V2 p 131: From 6e V2 p 91: That means Martial Block and Martial Dodge, for example, do not cost END. For that matter, a nerve strike costs no END (it does not use STR) and I could use an offensive strike for 0 END cost as long as I add no STR to the +4d6 provided by the maneuver (not overly practical, although a normal street tough won't last long against a series of 4d6 hits, so they can be effortlessly fought at 0 END). I could similarly restrict a Martial Throw to the velocity damage adder and effortlessly toss someone to the ground, or Legsweep for 1d6 damage and knock the target prone at 0 END cost.
  3. Stunned without losing STUN?

    FWIW, in the SETAC discussions predating 6e, Steve Long indicated that Hero does not include AP caps. Should it be 180 or so AP to have a 62.5% chance of Stunning a target with no other effects? The CE option was discussed, but not included in 6e, with the point that some effects were impossible to achieve reasonably by the RAW. Stunning and asphyxiation were two examples. For 50 points, you can force a CON roll on someone at -6 or they are Stunned. Is that more effective than paying 48 points to require everyone in a 32 meter radius area to make an INT roll at -6 or take completely random actions (my interpretation of the Confusion spell in the 6e sidebar, extrapolated to -6 instead of -4) or a -6 DEX roll to avoid falling prone? Anyone else recall the days of kludgy TK or Blasts with huge AP and limitations to get the ability to just knock someone prone?
  4. Focus

    I'd say if the opponents are all tactical dullards and never attempt a Disarm, Grab, etc. then the limitation is not properly playing out unless it limits the character in some other way, but I think natural play will have it crop up often enough (possibly many times in rapid succession because we have an arc featuring opponents who disarm, entangle, etc., then not for a while afterwards, certainly not "well, it happened 2 sessions ago so I have to wait until the next session, when it must happen" accounting), any more than tracking how often Water Breathing comes in handy to ensure the exact right number of sessions pass between uses, rather than having it really useful in an Atlantis arc, then not too useful for many arcs thereafter. At the same time, I'd be more inclined to have an underwater scenario to highlight a water breather than if no one had that power, so perhaps more inclined to include Disarms in the Martial Arts suite, Grabbing Bricks and/or low power Tangler Grenades in my agent arsenal if Mr. Shield is in the group. Some of that might be villain response knowing who they are likely to face, and how he might be countered.
  5. Stunned without losing STUN?

    The -6 is buried in my text, which gets us around to a 9- roll, which is 37.5% likely. In other words, the power is 62.5% likely to stun the target, which is the % chance of rolling 11-, so the limitation should be -1. I'll edit my post - thanks for the catch. OK, so that would be 50 points to Stun the target under my assumptions. We need 170 AP (150 if we allow an average roll of 3.5 instead of a 3 point standard effect). We already have a -1 limitation, so the value of "The Drain has no lasting effect" needs to be costed. If we think that limitation is -1 1/2 or more Christopher Taylor's build is cheaper. If we believe that limitation is less than -1 1/2, the CE build is cheaper. Of course, the cost can also be varied by changing the assumed CON level and assumed STUN of the target. The CE will be less effective against higher CON targets (and more effective against lower CON targets), while a Drain would be less effective against higher CON or higher STUN targets (and more effective if they have lower CON or STUN). Based on all this analysis, I don't think 50 points is an unreasonable result. A 5d6 STUN Drain will KO the target in 3 average hits (assuming no power defense), and leave him recovering 5 STUN per turn, so recovery is pretty limited. I'd rather have that power fighting one on one. But with a coordinated team, Stunning the target once or twice (the average result of three CE hits) is as, or more, powerful. Seems "rough justice" balanced to me.
  6. Negative END and charges

    As I see the "1 END minimum" requirement, it is not saying it costs 1 END to use a charge. It is saying that use of any non-martial combat maneuver costs the END required to use the power to which the maneuver is applied, or 1 END where there is no END cost to use the power (such as charges, Block and Dodge). The 1 END for firing your 16 charge Blaster Rifle is not paid to use the Blast or KA slot of the Rifle, but to use the Strike maneuver itself in firing the blaster rifle. Similarly, there is no END cost to use STR or movement to Block or Dodge - you spend 1 END to use the maneuver itself.
  7. Star Wars 8 complaint box

    Agreed, Badger - but the absence of the Mon Cal fleet is no harder to accept than the absence of the Rogue 1 characters, had they survived. To the Bespin question, I prefer the theory it took the Falcon a while to limp to Bespin + get repaired, and that Luke spent more than a day or two in training on Dagobah. The movie skipped over the "no action" parts.
  8. Focus

    Sure. Just like staying out of melee range to avoid disarms. But don't be shocked when a tactically sharp opponent Grabs your OAF and throws it as far as his STR can hurl it. Of course, any damage bonus from the shield is also useless at escaping Grabs and Entangles, which is also limiting.
  9. Negative END and charges

    RAW (5e and 6e page references above), it costs a minimum of 1 END to fire a weapon (a specific example of something, along with Block and Dodge, which requires spending 1 END). That's been around for a lot of editions, maybe even from 1e, but I rarely see it enforced.
  10. Stunned without losing STUN?

    I think CE which forces a roll to avoid being Stunned is as reasonable as CE which forces a roll to avoid falling prone. I'm not sure a "drain that does not really drain" is any less kludgy. 17d6 (170 AP) Drain will get 51 on a 3 point per 1d6 standard effect, recalling that STUN is a defensive power costing 0.5 points. What's the limitation for "immediately recovers"? That seems pretty limiting to me. Tack on HyperMan's "CON roll at -6 avoids entirely" means someone with a 30 CON needs 11- to avoid the effect (that's higher than average, and is a 62.5% chance of failure, which is equivalent to acting on a 9-,) That's a -1 1/2 limitation, IIRC (Act 11- being -1). I'm curious how the APG cost and your cost would compare. Your model would be a lot cheaper in a Heroic game.
  11. Star Wars 8 complaint box

    Where was the Mon Calamari fleet during the Battle of Yavin, or the Battle of Hoth? None of the Rogue 1 characters were in the fighter squadrons, so they would not necessarily be at the Battle of Yavin (or be visible if they were - no shortage of support people on the ground, no doubt). Some reason they were not on the Tantive IV, or not part of the briefing, maybe, but they weren't the Rebel Leadership either. In any case, story necessity that Han and Obi-Wan survive makes any threat they will not pretty hollow, reducing the sense of danger. Killing off the Rogue 1 characters was a shocker because we just assume the Good Guys (or at least most of them) will find a way out somehow. Now, if Han has a buddy (not Lando or Chewie), good odds that person does not survive the film. If he has a love interest, survival would be the shocker (maybe she dumps him, which is why he ends up moping in the cantina, but no one will be shocked if she dies). We know he won't die, or get the big score to pay Jabba off, or join the rebellion, or settle down with a romantic interest, or lose the Falcon...
  12. Focus

    I agree with Cassandra that the limitation must limit in some fashion. It may be that the character takes special steps to avoid HTH combat for fear of Disarms - that has not limited the power, but has limited the character's actions, without removing the potential someone can disarm him by closing in, or using a ranged ability that can disarm (like Stretching). If two characters have identical powers, except one pays half price due to an OAF, that price discount should carry negative consequences commensurate with the cost savings.
  13. Negative END and charges

    I think a cite would need to be that every action requires END - why would the rules state a negative? I recall older editions where it cost at least one END for any combat maneuver (Armory just posted a 5e cite in that regard), but not for martial maneuvers. Armory's first quote is in 6e (in the description of END), but many powers cost END (would we charge 1 END per phase for using the ability to breathe water, the same minimum END expended by a drowning character who cannot breathe water?) and movement and STR cost END, by default. I don't think that quote means "you can't do anything without an END cost. 6e p 131 reflects the second quote (largely, but not completely, unchanged), so that one is pretty clear. Not every action costs END, but most do.
  14. Star Wars 8 complaint box

    Comparison to Rogue One? It seems unlikely they can kill off all the main characters, for starters...
  15. Focus

    I don't see it that mathematical. An OAF can be disarmed, rendered useless by Grab or Entangle, etc. It need not be unavailable for an extended period to be limiting.
×