INT, EGO, and PRE for Vehicles

[C-Note]

5th Edition had INT, EGO, and PRE as optional characteristics for Vehicles.  Does this functionality exist in 6th Edition, or is a separate Computer/AI necessary to achieve this?

[Scott Baker]

Those optional characteristic rules are from The Ultimate Vehicle. The base 5ER and 6E rules don't include those options. There's no reason you can't use TUV with 6E.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I would think that INT and EGO would be for an onboard AI, but I can see vehicles having presence.  Say, an MRAP vs a Smart Car.

[Lucius]

 

I would use Striking Appearance for PRE for a Vehicle. I'd use a Computer for INT and an AI for INT and EGO.

 

I'm not sure how one would do EGO without INT or PRE, but I know people who have managed it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I use a palindromedary for a tagline

[bigdamnhero]

Whenever I've wanted a vehicle to have INT or EGO, I've always added an AI. But I guess there's no real reason you couldn't just give the vehicle those Characteristics directly - it would if nothing else be simpler.

[Christopher]

Follower, Summon, Multiform, Duplication, Base, Vehicle. These powers share a pricing theme and that they do differ in certain key properties.

 

Vehicles unique property (from my point of view) is that the sheet has actions, but no ability to decide when and how to use those actions. It has it's actions decided for it by another entity - a driver/pilot or AI.

If you want to make a Vehicle that can act on it's own, it is not really a vehicle (the rules construct) anymore. There is some exception with adding a "Computer" or "AI" to the vehicle, but otherwise "Vehicle" is plain the wrong rules construct. Consider if what you want is not closer to a regular character (follower, summon, etc.) that just has Vehicle-like abilities (mostly Usable by nearby and usable by others) combined with a high lifting load.

 

I would use Striking Appearance for PRE for a Vehicle. I'd use a Computer for INT and an AI for INT and EGO.

it is worth noticing that Bases and Vehicles can have Complications like "Distinctive Features" or "Reputation". Most noticeably military ground vehicles like tanks.
No reason it could not grant Striking Appereance to it's driver/passengers too, by the same logic.

 

As for adding thier PRE to a drivers:

That is really more a buff to the drivers presence.

 

First consider that just being in a car makes you a lot more dangerous then a normal human being. A car can move and accelerate faster and deal more damage/take less damage with a Move by/through then any normal person. The presence attack rules and Skill rules already consider such "favorable circumstances" as being in a car. Effectively it is a massive force multiplication. Wich is why most traffic laws are very particular about "weaponising" a car in any way.

 

Then consider if you need any Striking Appereance on top of that. Mostly this extra PRE should be based on the association with a Group - "That mobile belongs to the bat-familiy". "The avengers quin yet". "The teen titans mobile". "That paintjob identifies him to belonging to the 501st Hellhounds from Shadowrun". So it somewhat overlaps with a Distinctive Feature (it is not any car, but the bat mobile).

[bigdamnhero]

Vehicles unique property (from my point of view) is that the sheet has actions, but no ability to decide when and how to use those actions. It has it's actions decided for it by another entity - a driver/pilot or AI.

If you want to make a Vehicle that can act on it's own, it is not really a vehicle (the rules construct) anymore. There is some exception with adding a "Computer" or "AI" to the vehicle, but otherwise "Vehicle" is plain the wrong rules construct. Consider if what you want is not closer to a regular character (follower, summon, etc.) that just has Vehicle-like abilities (mostly Usable by nearby and usable by others) combined with a high lifting load.

I'd never though of it that way before. Interesting point. I think you could make a case that say, KITT from Knight Rider is as much a Follower as a Vehicle. But from a practical standpoint, what's the difference between building it as a Follower vs a Vehicle but with INT, EGO, etc?

 

As for adding thier PRE to a drivers:

That is really more a buff to the drivers presence.

I'm not 100% sure I buy this in real life - if I see an M1 Tank coming at me, the last thing on my mind is how impressive the driver is. But I think it works well enough for gaming purposes. Tho if you're giving a car INT & EGO so that it can act on its own, then it stands to reason the car should be able to make PRE Attacks on its own as well. Steven King's Christine comes to mind. But again we're back to: is this a vehicle or a separate character?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm not 100% sure I buy this in real life - if I see an M1 Tank coming at me, the last thing on my mind is how impressive the driver is.

 

Right, I can see presence boost for the driver or passengers as an option, but the vehicle its self can be quite intimidating without even knowing a driver is in it.

[Christopher]

I'd never though of it that way before. Interesting point. I think you could make a case that say, KITT from Knight Rider is as much a Follower as a Vehicle. But from a practical standpoint, what's the difference between building it as a Follower vs a Vehicle but with INT, EGO, etc?

 

I'm not 100% sure I buy this in real life - if I see an M1 Tank coming at me, the last thing on my mind is how impressive the driver is. But I think it works well enough for gaming purposes. Tho if you're giving a car INT & EGO so that it can act on its own, then it stands to reason the car should be able to make PRE Attacks on its own as well. Steven King's Christine comes to mind. But again we're back to: is this a vehicle or a separate character?

Some differences of Vehicle vs Follower are:

- 100% control, whereas followers are complete NPC with desires of thier own (you can drive a vehicle over the cliff, but not a follower).

- Repalceabilty. Nothing in the rules say you will not have a new "Batmobile" in the next session. Where followers and duplicates are somewhere between irreplaceable and hard to replace.

- Most powers of the Vehicle are inherently useable by Passgengers (like life support, armor) without having to buy that.

 

KITT is a wierd case that I would not even consider a follower or Vehicle/AI combo.

I would say he goes somewhere between "Member of the Superhero/Heroic Team" to being the actual main Character (the only one with superpowers), with his driver being in large parts an extension of him to allow interaction in Social Settings (a car blends in a lot less at a bar then David Hasselhoff).

 

The M1 Tank:

The average drivers PRE would ammount to aroudn 2D6. The rest is the fact that it is a armed tank, that can kill you 3 different ways (gun, MG, driving over) and is immune any light arm.

However in Hero the Relative Presense of any odd Tank agaisnt any odd solider does not mater. What maters is the Heroes Tank against odd Soldiers and not so odd Soldiers. Think "Red Baron" rather then "Tank 0815".

I asume the characters have marked thier tank accordingly to make use of thier Reputation (that is stronger then the US army ones). I would also asume a high presence Commander is better at making it appear threathening. I.e., knowing not to fire when the enemy can not clearly see the tank, is still unable to hear from the last artillery hit, or not firing the gun on the enemy watchtower when the tank is just hitting a groundbase obstacle that let's you miss, ...

 

Of course this might just mean the tank crew is making a teamworked Presence Attack.

 

Regarding EGO:

The two purposes are resisting Presense/interaction skills and resisting Techno-special effect mental powers.

You can cow the tank crew. As much as you can cow anyone in a armed & armored Vehicle (weak position for you).

And you can not control the mind of a thing that has no mind. You can not mind control a wall to bend, nor can you MC a mundane tank to turn on his people (that would be Pupeteering with Telekinesis or MC on the crew/AI controling the tank).

[Hadmar von Wieser]

My thoughts on PRE: Some vehicles obviously give the user a bonus on PRE. Stepping out of Batman's Tumbler, everyone looks cooler. Even Commissioner Gordon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0-nkpmjrI8

And of course Kirk and Piccard are much more impressive with the Enterprise in orbit about them, obviously following his commands.

Most of this is covered by the usual PRE modifiers.
But if the player insists or just wants to be sure he can depend on the effect, then he should be able to buy some more PRE or Striking Appearance on the vehicle, with an appropriate limitations, don't you think?
 

[Cantriped]

For "Vehicles" with all of the characteristics of characters, I would build them as characters, and use the Protects Carried Items adder on its defenses/life support to simulate that you are "inside" of the character/"vehicle".

[whitekeys]

Most of this is covered by the usual PRE modifiers.

But if the player insists or just wants to be sure he can depend on the effect, then he should be able to buy some more PRE or Striking Appearance on the vehicle, with an appropriate limitations, don't you think?

 

 

I disagree. If a character wants to ensure that the effect is dependable, the character would buy it on the character's own sheet with a Limitation. This seems appropriate only given a particular relationship between the character and the vehicle in question, like, perhaps, Ghost Rider and his motorcycle. Batman, since he has many different vehicles (which he may consider being more or less badass in different situations) would buy them on the vehicle.

 

I'm not 100% sure I buy this in real life - if I see an M1 Tank coming at me, the last thing on my mind is how impressive the driver is. But I think it works well enough for gaming purposes. Tho if you're giving a car INT & EGO so that it can act on its own, then it stands to reason the car should be able to make PRE Attacks on its own as well. Steven King's Christine comes to mind. But again we're back to: is this a vehicle or a separate character?

 

But if the M1 Tank came at you, you were intimidated, and then the driver popped out and said "Do what I tell you or I blow you up", his claim (and thus his PRE attack) would be bolstered by the tank itself. After all, the PRE isn't just about being impressive, it's about impressing people enough to get them to do things for you. 

 

My feeling is that having a INT, PRE, or EGO on a vehicle doesn't necessarily make it its own character. If these characteristics are used simply to buff the driver, as mentioned by Christopher, then there's no reason to assume that the vehicle can act on its own. The suggestion that a vehicle with INT has an AI was only a suggestion. The decision whether to use the rules for Vehicles or for Followers should be based on the role that entity plays in the campaign, which, I would think, was the basic difference between them in the first place.

[Hadmar von Wieser]

I disagree. If a character wants to ensure that the effect is dependable, the character would buy it on the character's own sheet with a Limitation.

 

like, perhaps, Ghost Rider and his motorcycle.

Good point.

[doccowie]

Making vehicles using normal character rules - this certainly makes sense for KITT, or science fiction ships run by AIs.

I'd be fascinated to see what the character sheet would look like if anyone has done this - what assumptions have people made about passengers etc?

[whitekeys]

Making vehicles using normal character rules - this certainly makes sense for KITT, or science fiction ships run by AIs.

I'd be fascinated to see what the character sheet would look like if anyone has done this - what assumptions have people made about passengers etc?

 

I would expect most people have done this at some point, to lesser or further degree. It's what suggested in the rule book, after all. My best attempt, from a long time ago, came after attempting to make these vehicles with totally different rules. They were Mechs. I thought I would do a bit of a rules conversion for MechAssault. While I had fun, I eventually got wise to the idea that the way HERO is should be tampered with as little as possible. And then the practicality hit me: Mechs have everything characters do, they're even shaped like humans, they're just piloted by a different mind. I made them using the normal character rules and Bob's your uncle. It's almost useless to consider the pilot as separate anyway, since you're always in your Mech, it's more like a powersuit. Although, for that campaign (which never actually happened) we had planned on doing stuff not in the Mechs.

 

You could almost build that as Multiform....

[bigdamnhero]

But if the M1 Tank came at you, you were intimidated, and then the driver popped out and said "Do what I tell you or I blow you up", his claim (and thus his PRE attack) would be bolstered by the tank itself. After all, the PRE isn't just about being impressive, it's about impressing people enough to get them to do things for you.

Fair point. Tho even then I would say the effect is 90% tank and at best 10% driver. But close enough for gaming.

[doccowie]

I had a go at this on HD last night. First off is the "Do you make them automatons or not?" question - if you do then along with moderate defenses it all gets very expensive very quickly. If not, then your mech gets stunned - but actually I don't think that's awful in superheroic genres.

 

Are we all happy that "protects carried items" on resistant defenses protects passengers in the same way that vehicles currently do, with passengers unharmed by machine gun fire unless there is a BODY breach to the vehicle?

 

"Usable by others" on HD was confusing. Could someone break down what the modifier should be for a weapon that can be fired either by the mech, or by a gunner? "Grantor pays END" - yes, "Must stay close to grantor"?

 

All in all, it's more expensive than building a vehicle, but the difference is less than I thought (unless you go full automaton), and I like the result.

 

Next, building an AI controlled base using character rules :- )

[Christopher]

I would expect most people have done this at some point, to lesser or further degree. It's what suggested in the rule book, after all. My best attempt, from a long time ago, came after attempting to make these vehicles with totally different rules. They were Mechs. I thought I would do a bit of a rules conversion for MechAssault. While I had fun, I eventually got wise to the idea that the way HERO is should be tampered with as little as possible. And then the practicality hit me: Mechs have everything characters do, they're even shaped like humans, they're just piloted by a different mind. I made them using the normal character rules and Bob's your uncle. It's almost useless to consider the pilot as separate anyway, since you're always in your Mech, it's more like a powersuit. Although, for that campaign (which never actually happened) we had planned on doing stuff not in the Mechs.

 

You could almost build that as Multiform....

Not only almost.

The Mech is a Multiform on a Focus. A permanetly grown alterante form, but a alternate form none the less.

 

I had a go at this on HD last night. First off is the "Do you make them automatons or not?" question - if you do then along with moderate defenses it all gets very expensive very quickly. If not, then your mech gets stunned - but actually I don't think that's awful in superheroic genres.

 

Are we all happy that "protects carried items" on resistant defenses protects passengers in the same way that vehicles currently do, with passengers unharmed by machine gun fire unless there is a BODY breach to the vehicle?

 

"Usable by others" on HD was confusing. Could someone break down what the modifier should be for a weapon that can be fired either by the mech, or by a gunner? "Grantor pays END" - yes, "Must stay close to grantor"?

 

All in all, it's more expensive than building a vehicle, but the difference is less than I thought (unless you go full automaton), and I like the result.

 

Next, building an AI controlled base using character rules :- )

Automaton or Not?

The Automaton Powers get removed from the Automaton itself for a good reason. Generally I would never allow a Player character or important NPC to have "Takes no Stun". It is just going way to much of a hassle ("How do we take him down without killing him?") everytime it comes up.

Even Zombies or the T-1000 in my book are mostly resistant to killing damage. They still take stun and can even be stunned (indeed that is what happens to them mostly). Stopping them for good is where the issues lie.

[bigdamnhero]

I had a go at this on HD last night. First off is the "Do you make them automatons or not?" question - if you do then along with moderate defenses it all gets very expensive very quickly. If not, then your mech gets stunned - but actually I don't think that's awful in superheroic genres.

I agree that full Automaton Powers for significant characters is problematic, not to mention expensive. There's certainly nothing wrong with having "systems knocked offline temporarily" (ie - Stunned/KOd).

 

Are we all happy that "protects carried items" on resistant defenses protects passengers in the same way that vehicles currently do, with passengers unharmed by machine gun fire unless there is a BODY breach to the vehicle?

I don't see why not.

 

"Usable by others" on HD was confusing. Could someone break down what the modifier should be for a weapon that can be fired either by the mech, or by a gunner? "Grantor pays END" - yes, "Must stay close to grantor"?

I'd certainly go with "Must stay close." "Grantor pays END" works, assuming the weapon requires END, not Charges.

[Tasha]

Those optional characteristic rules are from The Ultimate Vehicle. The base 5ER and 6E rules don't include those options. There's no reason you can't use TUV with 6E.

Pretty sure that TUV is "official" for 6e too. Kind of like Ultimate Skill is the same book as HS Skills (ex the name change on one skill Seduction to Charm)

[Tasha]

re: the OP. 
Presence is great for vehicles that are intimidating all by themselves. ie Abrams MBT or a Battleship, Giant Robot etc. You could even make a case for a motorvehicle that just looks so perfect, fast etc that it inspires awe parked.

Int and Ego are for vehicles that have their own computers on board(Int only for dumb computer, Int/Ego for AI's) this would be like KITT as an Int/Ego vehicle. You could make the case for most modern Vehicles with their computer packages having Int and programs.

[Cantriped]

Pretty sure that TUV is "official" for 6e too. Kind of like Ultimate Skill is the same book as HS Skills (ex the name change on one skill Seduction to Charm)

Well, as Official as its ever going to get... They never published Hero System Vehicles for 6th... which pisses me off to no end because, for example, Fantasy HERO references it. A book that doesn't, and will never exist.

[Tasha]

re Mecha. Whether you go Automaton(though if you do this, just buy it as a vehicle). or as a different form for the PC (aka Multiform) depends on the universe and the tech.

IMHO Macross Mecha don't seem to have that brain connection and would just be a vehicle.

The Jagers from Pacific Rim, the Pilots are intimately connected to the bot and each other. They could be Stunned and KOed by enough damage. IMHO that would make the Mecha more like a character with ALL of the stats (Con, Stun etc). 

Like all conversions, take a long look at the source and see what happens to the pilots of the mecha. That will tell you if it should be a vehicle or something like a Mutliform form/ OIAID Character.