Magic and Druids and Bears (Oh My!)

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Multiform... when I get home I'll check the 6e core books to see if what it says there is different from what it says in FHC.  But: as the GM, you can tweak the rules the way you want.  When building a character with Multiform, you pick one form to be the "true form".  That form pays for the Multiform Power, which by RAW is equal to 1/5 the cost (that's Total Points) of the most expensive form.  (Oddly, and perhaps illogically, the true form could also be the most expensive form, in which case a 100 total point true form would pay 20 points for the ability to turn into an 80-point bear.)  But as GM, you can change that all you want.  Logically, the true form would pay the points to be able to switch to the other forms, no matter the cost of those other forms.  If the true form is a 100-point character, but he wants to change into an 80-point bear, and it makes sense to you as the GM to have him pay (80 / 5 = 16) 16 points for the ability to change into an 80-point bear, you can!

 

About spending Experience Points: if you had your Multiform Power, for which you paid 16 points for the ability to change into an 80-point bear, and you wanted to increase your bear form to 90 points, you could have the true form spend 2 XP.  He would then have a Multiform costing 18 points, which would allow him to change into a 90-point creature.  That gives the bear 10 extra points to spend.  

 

I think that Multiform as worded in the text you quoted is confusing.  (I have to admit I don't recall which book(s) you're working out of; if you could remind me that would be helpful.)  

 

The thing about the spiral part: if you were having him pay the cost of the most expensive form, and the most expensive form were 100 total points, it would be a 20-point Power.  If you had the True Form pay that, then his base character sheet would have:  

 

20     Bear Form:  Multiform (100 points in most expensive form) ... 

 

If the true form then spent 5 XP to become a 105 total point character, one of those points would have to be spent on Multiform, making it thus: 

 

21     Bear Form:  Multiform (105 points in most expensive form) ...

 

Leaving him 4 points to spend on other stuff.  The point of the "most expensive form pays" rule is so that, for instance, a 100 point character doesn't spend all 100 of his points on Multiform and come into the game with a 500 point monstrosity.  But then, that's partly what GMs are for.  (That, and changing the rules where they don't make sense or are confusing.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Chris has more than covered Knockdown - and adds that this is the Fantasy Hero default, so it should already be in play - the bear swipe just needs a build that makes him better at it.

 

Or I think 2 points for a Legsweep maneuver that only knocks the target prone is not unreasonable given the maneuver itself would cost 3. Normally, you have to spend at least 10 points on martial maneuvers, but the GM can change any rule. By the way, will it knock an elephant, a dragon or a giant prone? Knockdown would factor their weight and Knokckback/Down resistance in.

 

I'll finally note I don't recall bears knocking opponents prone in any d20 edition, so the ability to do this at all is a significant change over the d20 system, isn't it?

 

On to Multiform:

 

From 6e

 

The cost for Multiform, which only the true form pays for, is 1 Character Point for every 5 Character Points the most expensive alternate form is built with (i.e., his Total Points; Matching Complications don’t reduce the alternate form’s cost). The character may pay +5 Character Points for every up to two times the number of alternate forms of equal or lesser cost (i.e., 5 Character Points for up to x2 alternate forms, 10 Character Points for up to x4 alternate forms, and so on). The cost of the true form has no affect on the cost of the alternate forms, nor does the existence of the true form affect the calculation of how many alternate forms the character buys for +5 points.

 

The points spent on Multiform define how many points a single form has. They aren’t split between the various forms. For example, if a character spends 80 points to have a 400-point Multiform, the alternate form is built on 400 points. If he spends +10 points to have four alternate forms, each form is built on up to 400 points. He doesn’t have to split them 100/100/100/100 between the forms, or the like.

So if you want to build

 

I could create a multiform of a mouse, a sloth, or a giant grizzly all at wildly differing stats - anywhere from 1CP to 99CP, and the cost of the power would still be 20CP

and the sloth totals 1 CP, the mouse totals 50 (he's pretty small, high DCV, stealth...) and the Grizzly has 100 (good luck building him on 100...), then the Multiform cost starts with 1/5 the cost of the most expensive form, so 100/5 = 20. Maybe you only buy the Mouse and the Sloth - cost 50/5 = 10. Just the sloth? 1/5 = 1 since that's the minimum cost.

 

Since you have three forms, you spend +10 points (which allows you to have up to four forms - perhaps you add a snake, or a hawk).

 

If you never change the build of those forms, they never cost any more. If you use xp to pay another 5 points for that base 20, now the forms can each cost up to 125 points. Maybe the Bear gets some combat skill levels, the eagle flies faster, and the mouse is still just a mouse and has less than 125 points.

 

Now, you only want him to be able to use the bear form twice a day. 6e indicates that a character taking charges for a Multiform may change form up to that many times a day. So Multiform with two Charges would allow the character to change shape, then return to his true form, then change shape again and return to his true form again. That is a violation of the rules, and this is acknowledged. As Multiform is Persistent, the charges should last 1 phase per charge, or be continuing charges.

 

If you want to follow the normal Charges rules, he could have Continuing charges. For example, he could have 2 charges that last up to 5 minutes (3 steps down on the table, so he gets the -3/4 limitation normally applicable to 5 - 6 charges. Now he can change into a bear twice a day, for up to 1 minute at a time.

 

Or he could buy fuel charges. This is like a Continuing Charge, but you only buy one charge, and reduce the limitation value by 1/4. So maybe he buys a 1 minute Fuel Charge - that starts at 1 charge, moves three steps down the chart (for Continuing Charges) to get to -1, and reduce that a further -1/4 to -3/4. Now he can turn into a bear as often as he wants, but can only stay in bear form for a total of 1 minute per day.

 

I don't find this too tough, but I have played Hero a long time.

 

ONE MORE THING: That quote you cited is from the rules for spending xp on the alternate forms, in 6e. Multiform is a complex power, and there are about 2.5 pages before that, assuming you are also using 6e. How to enhance the Bear Form with xp is probably the least immediately relevant section of the Multiform rules as you build the base character.

[knasser2]

Re: Multiform... when I get home I'll check the 6e core books to see if what it says there is different from what it says in FHC.  But: as the GM, you can tweak the rules the way you want.  When building a character with Multiform, you pick one form to be the "true form".  That form pays for the Multiform Power, which by RAW is equal to 1/5 the cost (that's Total Points) of the most expensive form.  (Oddly, and perhaps illogically, the true form could also be the most expensive form, in which case a 100 total point true form would pay 20 points for the ability to turn into an 80-point bear.)  But as GM, you can change that all you want.  Logically, the true form would pay the points to be able to switch to the other forms, no matter the cost of those other forms.  If the true form is a 100-point character, but he wants to change into an 80-point bear, and it makes sense to you as the GM to have him pay (80 / 5 = 16) 16 points for the ability to change into an 80-point bear, you can!

 

About spending Experience Points: if you had your Multiform Power, for which you paid 16 points for the ability to change into an 80-point bear, and you wanted to increase your bear form to 90 points, you could have the true form spend 2 XP.  He would then have a Multiform costing 18 points, which would allow him to change into a 90-point creature.  That gives the bear 10 extra points to spend.  

 

I think that Multiform as worded in the text you quoted is confusing.  (I have to admit I don't recall which book(s) you're working out of; if you could remind me that would be helpful.)  

 

The thing about the spiral part: if you were having him pay the cost of the most expensive form, and the most expensive form were 100 total points, it would be a 20-point Power.  If you had the True Form pay that, then his base character sheet would have:  

 

20     Bear Form:  Multiform (100 points in most expensive form) ... 

 

If the true form then spent 5 XP to become a 105 total point character, one of those points would have to be spent on Multiform, making it thus: 

 

21     Bear Form:  Multiform (105 points in most expensive form) ...

 

Leaving him 4 points to spend on other stuff.  The point of the "most expensive form pays" rule is so that, for instance, a 100 point character doesn't spend all 100 of his points on Multiform and come into the game with a 500 point monstrosity.  But then, that's partly what GMs are for.  (That, and changing the rules where they don't make sense or are confusing.)

 

Chris has more than covered Knockdown - and adds that this is the Fantasy Hero default, so it should already be in play - the bear swipe just needs a build that makes him better at it.

 

Or I think 2 points for a Legsweep maneuver that only knocks the target prone is not unreasonable given the maneuver itself would cost 3. Normally, you have to spend at least 10 points on martial maneuvers, but the GM can change any rule. By the way, will it knock an elephant, a dragon or a giant prone? Knockdown would factor their weight and Knokckback/Down resistance in.

 

I'll finally note I don't recall bears knocking opponents prone in any d20 edition, so the ability to do this at all is a significant change over the d20 system, isn't it?

 

On to Multiform:

 

From 6e

 

 

So if you want to build

 

 

and the sloth totals 1 CP, the mouse totals 50 (he's pretty small, high DCV, stealth...) and the Grizzly has 100 (good luck building him on 100...), then the Multiform cost starts with 1/5 the cost of the most expensive form, so 100/5 = 20. Maybe you only buy the Mouse and the Sloth - cost 50/5 = 10. Just the sloth? 1/5 = 1 since that's the minimum cost.

 

Since you have three forms, you spend +10 points (which allows you to have up to four forms - perhaps you add a snake, or a hawk).

 

If you never change the build of those forms, they never cost any more. If you use xp to pay another 5 points for that base 20, now the forms can each cost up to 125 points. Maybe the Bear gets some combat skill levels, the eagle flies faster, and the mouse is still just a mouse and has less than 125 points.

 

Now, you only want him to be able to use the bear form twice a day. 6e indicates that a character taking charges for a Multiform may change form up to that many times a day. So Multiform with two Charges would allow the character to change shape, then return to his true form, then change shape again and return to his true form again. That is a violation of the rules, and this is acknowledged. As Multiform is Persistent, the charges should last 1 phase per charge, or be continuing charges.

 

If you want to follow the normal Charges rules, he could have Continuing charges. For example, he could have 2 charges that last up to 5 minutes (3 steps down on the table, so he gets the -3/4 limitation normally applicable to 5 - 6 charges. Now he can change into a bear twice a day, for up to 1 minute at a time.

 

Or he could buy fuel charges. This is like a Continuing Charge, but you only buy one charge, and reduce the limitation value by 1/4. So maybe he buys a 1 minute Fuel Charge - that starts at 1 charge, moves three steps down the chart (for Continuing Charges) to get to -1, and reduce that a further -1/4 to -3/4. Now he can turn into a bear as often as he wants, but can only stay in bear form for a total of 1 minute per day.

 

I don't find this too tough, but I have played Hero a long time.

 

ONE MORE THING: That quote you cited is from the rules for spending xp on the alternate forms, in 6e. Multiform is a complex power, and there are about 2.5 pages before that, assuming you are also using 6e. How to enhance the Bear Form with xp is probably the least immediately relevant section of the Multiform rules as you build the base character.

 

Thank you both. I think the point of confusion has been found and it's a doozy.

 

So I looked at the cost given in 6e1 and it's listed as follows:

 

1 character point for every 5 character points in the most expensive form; 2x the number of forms for +5 character point

 

Further down it says this:

 

The player must choose one of his character’s

forms to be the true form. Th true form can be

any of the character’s forms, depending upon

character conception. Th other form(s) bought

with Multiform are his alternate form(s). Th

character’s true form can have more points than

his alternate forms, or his alternate forms can have

more points than his true form (before or aftr

accounting for the points the true form pays for

Multiform). In other words, the true form doesn’t

have to be the most expensive of the character’s

forms, and the relationship of the costs of the

forms doesn’t affct Multiform’s cost. As always,

the GM should monitor the situation to prevent

abuse.

Taken together these confused the Hell out of me! It seemed to be going out of its way to emphasise that any one of the forms including the "true" form could be the one that costs are calculated from. Indeed, that is what the section at the top says.

 

In the second paragraph there is something that explains how it should work but the word I highlighted in Red got past me:

 

Th cost for Multiform, which only the true

form pays for, is 1 Character Point for every 5

Character Points the most expensive alternate

form is built with (i.e., his Total Points; Matching

Complications don’t reduce the alternate form’s

cost). Th character may pay +5 Character Points

for every up to two times the number of alternate

forms of equal or lesser cost (i.e., 5 Character

Points for up to x2 alternate forms, 10 Character

Points for up to x4 alternate forms, and so on).

Th cost of the true form has no affct on the cost

of the alternate forms, nor does the existence of

the true form affct the calculation of how many

alternate forms the character buys for +5 points

I was costing it based on the Summary section at the top which doesn't say anything about it only applying to Alternative Forms and the first paragraph seemed to be telling me that the "true" form was included in the list of forms. Maybe it's just me but somewhere in the six paragraph explanation of how multi-forms work, it lost me.

 

Honestly, that summary section should read "1 Character point for every 5 Character Points in the most expensive alternate form. As written, it is incorrect. And as it is the simplest explanation it is the one that people, when they find something confusing, go back to for their starting point.

 

Just to check then, the Cost in the summary section at the top of the power description is incorrect. It's 1CP per 5 in the most expensive ALTERNATE form. Which can be any of the player's choice.

[Hugh Neilson]

A thought from another thread on the Claw Swipe knocking the target down - Change Environment to force a roll to remain standing (whether a DEX check, a STR check or even an opposed STR check) could work.

 

How did we get three pages in without Change Environment? (Or extra-dimensional movement to a reality where the guy he hits fell over ).

[Alcibiades]

This isn't really that hard.

 

The Bear Necessities -- OF EXTREME BRUTALITY!!!!!!

 

15 Strength 25 for the Bear

20 Bite: HKA 1d6+1 (3d6 w/STR)

20 Claws: HKA 1 1/2d6 (3d6+1 w/STR), Reduced Penetration (-1/4)

  2 Legsweep, Linked (-1/4) to Claws

 

Total: 47

 

I'm not sure if Linked is fully legal on a martial maneuver, but otherwise just define it as a claw swipe.

[Hugh Neilson]

Buying a single martial maneuver is definitely not legal, RAW. I think defining Legsweep as a claw swipe makes sense, but the limitation does not. If anything, a backhanded swipe doing normal STR damage seems a more fitting version of the maneuver.

[Alcibiades]

The Red in Tooth and Claw martial art actually includes Legsweep (renamed something else, but it's identical ruleswise).

[Christopher R Taylor]

I wouldn't buy legsweep as a link, for a couple reasons.  First, its not really an additional attack, he isn't hitting twice, he's just knocking someone over.  Second, by having them separate, you allow the bear to hit targets without always meaning to knock them down.  And third, Martial Arts are a construct like talents, and its awkward putting modifiers on them to begin with.

[Alcibiades]

You can Link one power to another without it necessarily going off.

 

What this would do mechanically (and I know this isn't legal RAW, but the GM is Will Incarnate) is force the Legsweep modifiers -- +2 OCV, -1 DCV, +1 DC, target falls -- to be used only with the Claw attack.

 

Actually, not the Legsweep modifiers, but the Knockdown modifiers from the Red in Tooth and Claw martial art, which are identical to the Legsweep modifiers (it's a renamed Legsweep) but can be used with any of the critter's attacks.

 

If you want to make it totally RAW, just buy the Red in Tooth and Claw martial art (it's only a few maneuvers and you only need three of them) and slap "only with claws" (or better yet, "not with bite") as a Limitation on Knockdown.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you want to make it totally RAW, just buy the Red in Tooth and Claw martial art (it's only a few maneuvers and you only need three of them) and slap "only with claws" (or better yet, "not with bite") as a Limitation on Knockdown.

or just accept "not with bite" is a no point "limitation" on a legsweep type maneuver. Really, can you use your knee to perform a chokehold, or your head to make a Martial Throw?

 

"I didn't limit it, so I should be able to do a Martial Grab with my tongue."

[Chris Goodwin]

or just accept "not with bite" is a no point "limitation" on a legsweep type maneuver. Really, can you use your knee to perform a chokehold, or your head to make a Martial Throw?

 

"I didn't limit it, so I should be able to do a Martial Grab with my tongue."

 

What if I have redefined my physical form within "normal human" parameters, such that I have no arms, but that I have a forked and prehensile tongue, and the forks of my tongue are effectively my "arms"?  For which I have neither spent points nor taken any points in Complications.

[Hugh Neilson]

Then you are hardly the standard by which the system might be assessed in a default state, are you?

[Alcibiades]

The maneuver in question is not actually Legsweep, though it has identical modifiers. It's the Knockdown maneuver (I don't remember the exact name) in the Red in Tooth and Claw martial art, which is not defined as a sweep with a leg (naturally, since animals don't normally do that ). It's not actually defined what it is at all.

 

For that matter, the RiT&C Martial Strike is "Bash/Claw/Chomp", which is clearly not defined as a move with a particular body part.

 

The Martial Arts rules in general are extremely inconsistent. You've got maneuvers strictly defined as an attack with x body part, and then you've got other maneuvers that are defined as an attack with x, y, z body part but are otherwise identical to the first maneuver.

 

Anyway, to the OP, my recommendation is just Linking the knockdown maneuver to the Claws. It's only 1 point, RAW be damned..

[Hugh Neilson]

As I mull over it, Chris, I suggest that, behind the scenes, your character has sold off his arms and purchased a forked prehensile tongue.  Depending on the GM and the edition, that might have been done as:

 

i) sell off your arms and purchase forked, prehensile tongue as Extra Limbs;

 

ii) you are gaining nothing and losing nothing - you have simply changed the SFX of "arms" to the SFX of "prehensile forked tongue" and there is no mechanical cost to SFX (this is actually a lot like option (i) if we assume the costs balance out, and reasonably they should);

 

iii) you have something baseline characters do not, so pay for the prehensile forked tongue.  You lack something baseline characters have, so take "no arms" as a complication/disadvantage. [a variant of the old Daredevil syndrome]

 

It took until 6e for the rules to explicitly say "if it has no benefit it should cost no points".  Option (ii) most easily achieves that. 

[Hugh Neilson]

The maneuver in question is not actually Legsweep, though it has identical modifiers. It's the Knockdown maneuver (I don't remember the exact name) in the Red in Tooth and Claw martial art, which is not defined as a sweep with a leg (naturally, since animals don't normally do that ). It's not actually defined what it is at all.

If you look at the definition of Special Effects in the 6e glossary, it refers to maneuvers having SFX. Changing the look of the maneuver is no different from making a Blast lightning rather than fire.

 

Anyway, to the OP, my recommendation is just Linking the knockdown maneuver to the Claws. It's only 1 point, RAW be damned.

So are you OK with any player adding "Knockdown" to any attack for 1 point? Being able to knock an opponent prone seems quite advantageous, so I can see a lot of players spending that 1 point.

[knasser2]

I wouldn't buy legsweep as a link, for a couple reasons.  First, its not really an additional attack, he isn't hitting twice, he's just knocking someone over.  Second, by having them separate, you allow the bear to hit targets without always meaning to knock them down.  And third, Martial Arts are a construct like talents, and its awkward putting modifiers on them to begin with.

 

The bolded part is something that I explicitly do not want. My goal here is to build a system that is both simple to play and forces interesting tactical choices. The player does not get a detailed breakdown of Active Points, Real Points and other such things that - I'm sorry to say - will instantly disengage my players. They get a bear with two attacks - one of which is a straight bite, the other of which is weaker against armour but also knocks people over. It's meant to be ( a ) immediately graspable by the player and ( b ) mean that the player is making a straight-forward choice between two desirable options. They don't get to make one of the options as useful as the other and void that choice. You also have to understand that I am the ONLY person in the group dealing with power construction, and designing the available powers.

 

I'm honestly staggered that this is up to four pages by this point because to me it is the simplest requirement in the world: I want people who are hit by the bear's claws to have a chance to fall over and people who are hit by other attacks not to be subjected to that risk. There is no further nuance, no options, no choice, no freedom, no variation, no complexity to it than that. Honestly, in D&D I would be long since home by now. It would be something like "Claws: 1d8 damage, Dex Save or be Prone." People keep coming at this from the exact opposite point of view than the one I keep saying I want. They tell me to use knockback rules everywhere - I don't want that. I want this to be a special feature of a special attack. They tell me to make it optional. I don't want that. I want this to be a special feature of a special attack. The complexity is boggling my mind. I just want ONE single attack to knock people over. Nothing less and also nothing more.

[Alcibiades]

If you look at the definition of Special Effects in the 6e glossary, it refers to maneuvers having SFX. Changing the look of the maneuver is no different from making a Blast lightning rather than fire.

 

 

So are you OK with any player adding "Knockdown" to any attack for 1 point? Being able to knock an opponent prone seems quite advantageous, so I can see a lot of players spending that 1 point.

 

 

The maneuver I am referring to is not one that I made up by renaming "legsweep." It's a published maneuver in the Bestiary, which has identical rules to Legsweep.

 

Technically, linking Not-Legsweep to Claws would cost 2 points, which is a saving of 1 point on the maneuver's standard cost of 3 points.

[Alcibiades]

The bolded part is something that I explicitly do not want. My goal here is to build a system that is both simple to play and forces interesting tactical choices. The player does not get a detailed breakdown of Active Points, Real Points and other such things that - I'm sorry to say - will instantly disengage my players. They get a bear with two attacks - one of which is a straight bite, the other of which is weaker against armour but also knocks people over. It's meant to be ( a ) immediately graspable by the player and ( b ) mean that the player is making a straight-forward choice between two desirable options. They don't get to make one of the options as useful as the other and void that choice. You also have to understand that I am the ONLY person in the group dealing with power construction, and designing the available powers.

 

I'm honestly staggered that this is up to four pages by this point because to me it is the simplest requirement in the world: I want people who are hit by the bear's claws to have a chance to fall over and people who are hit by other attacks not to be subjected to that risk. There is no further nuance, no options, no choice, no freedom, no variation, no complexity to it than that. Honestly, in D&D I would be long since home by now. It would be something like "Claws: 1d8 damage, Dex Save or be Prone." People keep coming at this from the exact opposite point of view than the one I keep saying I want. They tell me to use knockback rules everywhere - I don't want that. I want this to be a special feature of a special attack. They tell me to make it optional. I don't want that. I want this to be a special feature of a special attack. The complexity is boggling my mind. I just want ONE single attack to knock people over. Nothing less and also nothing more.

 

Yeah, this is a drawback of Hero that I have encountered many times. It can be incredibly difficult to do something simple.

 

EDIT: there is a Shove maneuver. Maybe just +X STR, Only to Shove, Only as Part of a Multiple Power Attack with Claws ?

 

Or just make up your own martial art. Here's one.

 

3 Bite +1 OCV +2 DC

3 Claw +2 OCV -1 DCV +1 DC Target Falls

3 Bite and Hold -1 DCV Grab One Limb +10 STR to Grab

 

The Bite is defined as a bite, so uses the bite. Claw with claws.

 

Simple and rules-legal.

[Hugh Neilson]

The bolded part is something that I explicitly do not want. My goal here is to build a system that is both simple to play and forces interesting tactical choices. The player does not get a detailed breakdown of Active Points, Real Points and other such things that - I'm sorry to say - will instantly disengage my players. They get a bear with two attacks - one of which is a straight bite, the other of which is weaker against armour but also knocks people over. It's meant to be ( a ) immediately graspable by the player and ( b ) mean that the player is making a straight-forward choice between two desirable options. They don't get to make one of the options as useful as the other and void that choice. You also have to understand that I am the ONLY person in the group dealing with power construction, and designing the available powers.

I continue to be challenged by the theory that having two choices in combat is "interesting tactical choice" but having choice of whether the Bear swipes with his claws (killing attack), snaps down with his bite (different killing attack), bashes with his paws (normal attack), attempts to Grab, or Trip, or Disarm his target, or uses any of a variety of other maneuvers, possibly including purchased Martial maneuvers like legsweep, or even combines his attacks (multiple attack; combined attack) is not.

 

I'm honestly staggered that this is up to four pages by this point because to me it is the simplest requirement in the world: I want people who are hit by the bear's claws to have a chance to fall over and people who are hit by other attacks not to be subjected to that risk. There is no further nuance, no options, no choice, no freedom, no variation, no complexity to it than that. Honestly, in D&D I would be long since home by now. It would be something like "Claws: 1d8 damage, Dex Save or be Prone."

Why not "Improved Trip", or the EX: Trip added to the wolf's bite? You want to add a third mechanic with a Reflex save? Why not a FORT save for being sturdy and not knocked over rather than a reflex save for being agile and getting out of the way? If he got out of the way, the bear would not have smacked him.

 

People keep coming at this from the exact opposite point of view than the one I keep saying I want. They tell me to use knockback rules everywhere - I don't want that. I want this to be a special feature of a special attack. They tell me to make it optional. I don't want that. I want this to be a special feature of a special attack. The complexity is boggling my mind. I just want ONE single attack to knock people over. Nothing less and also nothing more.

So use "Does Knockdown" on the bear's attack and prohibit anyone else taking the same advantage on any attack. DONE - you are not using the knockback or knockdown rules anywhere else - this is a special feature of one special attack.

 

But be prepared for players who may wonder what the point of switching to this much more flexible game system was, if they are not allowed to actually build character abilities flexibly.

 

The primary reason you are getting many suggestions over four pages is not that it is tough to do, but because there are an array of ways to do it, each just a bit different, so we have spent four pages narrowing it down to options that fit your criteria. "Easy and quick" would have been Doc D's post right after you first mentioned knocking a target down - add "does knockdown" to the attack.

 

You didn't like that, and said so around post 27 (a lot of Multiform discussion flying around, not much about knocking people down). Post 29, Doc D points out the two maneuvers which deliver the result you are seeking - a prone target. Levels to counteract the penalty for a combined Strike and Trip, and there is our Bear's special claw attack.

 

You didn't like that, so asked "can't we just make someone fall down?" so we are back to the knockdown mechanic which, as the name implies, knocks people down.

 

Or a maneuver that knocks people down.

 

Post 49, we are back to "how do I knock someone down" and post 50, Chris Goodwin tells you how. DO NOT use knockdown as a standard of the game. Bear buys Does Knockdown on its STR, or its claws defined as a Claw Strike. Voila - the bear can knock people down with a claw swipe. No one else can, and the bear has to use a claw swipe. Post 54, some clown adds a Change Environment to the options - another way your bear can have an attack that knocks people down.

 

Chris Goodwin just posted a whole build for you in the time it took me to go back through the thread.

 

The problem is not that you have no options, but that you refuse to pick one. If you want it to be D&D, play D&D!

[Chris Goodwin]

Do you want it to always be the same penalty to the roll?  Like, when hit the target rolls at -3?  Or do you want it to be based on the amount of damage done?  

 

Change Environment is the classic "make a DEX Roll or fall prone" Power.  If you want a constant value, buy that much.  Forcing a roll costs 3 points for -1, so -3 would be 9 points.  If you want a variable amount, buy a larger value (say, -10) and add a Limitation, like "Max penalty equal to BODY done."  

 

You would add the Instant (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), and Linked To Paw Smash (-1/2) or whatever you call the combined attack.  The real cost would be (9 / 2.5) 3.6, which rounds to 4 Real Points.  That would add to the cost of the Paw Smash, so it would look something like: 

 

Paw Smash:  HKA, 1d6 vs. PD (2d6 with STR) (Real Cost: 15 points) plus Change Environment (fall prone, -3 to STR or DEX Roll, whichever is better) (9 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Instant (-1/2), Linked to HKA (-1/2) (Real Cost: 4 points).  Total Real Cost: 19 points.  END Cost: 2 (+1 if 10 or 15 STR used).

 

That does exactly it.  

 

Edit: This assumes the bear has 15 STR, which costs 1 END; the HKA costs 1 END, and the Change Environment costs 1 END.  If the bear has more STR, you can add whatever the bear's STR damage is; if he has 20 STR, he'll spend 1 for the HKA, 2 for the STR, and 1 for the CE, to do a total of 2d6+1.  It could be rewritten thusly: 

 

Paw Smash:  2d6 melee Killing (includes Strength); when hit, target must make STR or DEX Roll at -3 or fall prone.  END Cost: 3.

[Chris Goodwin]

I continue to be challenged by the theory that having two choices in combat is "interesting tactical choice" but having a choice between a dozen different maneuvers, each with their own pros and cons is not.

 

 

Why not "Improved Trip", or the EX: Trip added to the wolf's bite? You want to add a third mechanic with a Reflex save? Why not a FORT save for being sturdy and not knocked over rather than a reflex save for being agile and getting out of the way? If he got out of the way, the bear would not have smacked him.

 

 

So use "Does Knockdown" on the bear's attack and prohibit anyone else taking the same advantage on any attack. DONE - you are not using the knockback or knockdown rules anywhere else - this is a special feature of one special attack.

 

But be prepared for players who may wonder what the point of switching to this much more flexible game system was, if they are not allowed to actually build character abilities flexibly.

 

With new players, you want to hook them first.  Some end up with analysis paralysis, and no new player wants to be confronted with a wall of HERO System source code to try to parse out how an ability works.  

[Hugh Neilson]

TRY THIS: Of all the suggestions so far, pick the one you like best (or despise least). Tell us what you like, what you dislike and what you don't grasp. Guaranteed. someone will suggest a way to move it closer to your vision.

[knasser2]

I continue to be challenged by the theory that having two choices in combat is "interesting tactical choice" but having choice of whether the Bear swipes with his claws (killing attack), snaps down with his bite (different killing attack), bashes with his paws (normal attack), attempts to Grab, or Trip, or Disarm his target, or uses any of a variety of other maneuvers, possibly including purchased Martial maneuvers like legsweep, or even combines his attacks (multiple attack; combined attack) is not.

Well this one is easily answered, at least. If all the pieces in Chess are queens, then there is no longer the structure that makes it chess. It instead becomes something more like drafts (chequers to Americans, I think). Limits on choices are necessary for choices to be meaningful because the fewer limits there are on choices, the less distinct they become. If the player can mix and match manoeuvres between bites and claws, then bites and claws become more interchangeable and the choice less meaningful. Remember that I had TWO criteria - simple and tactically meaningful. Give someone a hammer and a screwdriver, you have a simple choice that has visibly different outcomes. Give someone a giant toolbox and tell them "hey - now you have LOTS of tactical choices" and two things happen - firstly you lose the simplicity. Secondly, choice diminishes which may seem counterintuitive to you but uninformed choice is not perceived as choice. This is a consequence of the first. A player only feels like they're making a choice if they're in control and they understand those choices. If the player does not, then they actually feel like they don't have choice, they have guessing. Or that they'll just end up doing what their GM tells them they should do which is again, not something that feels like tactical choice to them. In the above, you listed out Grab, Trip, Disarm, Legsweep, Multiple Attack and Combined Attack. In my scenario the player is sitting across from me and saying something like "Should I try to bite the knight which might work or be more defensive and knock him over so he can't attack me so well?" Maybe they do some very quick arithmetic on the two scenarios. It's meaningful and it's in their control. In your scenario, they sit there with the eight different options and if they want to make an informed choice, it's going to take twenty minutes of looking at rules and comparing numbers. What will more likely happen is the player retreats out of either confusion or lack of time to properly assess things and just guesses at what they think will be the best. And guessing doesn't feel like choice.

 

So you see, with two clearly distinct options a player has a tactical decision to make. With massive flexibility, it turns into "I don't have the tools to determine which is best." The former is an exciting decision, the latter a disheartening spin of the compass.

 

So use "Does Knockdown" on the bear's attack and prohibit anyone else taking the same advantage on any attack. DONE - you are not using the knockback or knockdown rules anywhere else - this is a special feature of one special attack.

Which works absolutely fine for me and is what I've been asking for. But I don't know how to cost it. The system says "here are knockdown rules you can use" but it's just an option that you turn on or off system wide. It's not a Power or an Advantage that I can add. There are things that adjust how it works, but no cost for actually adding it as a special feature of an attack. The above is what I am wanting to do. I don't know how to cost it.

 

But be prepared for players who may wonder what the point of switching to this much more flexible game system was, if they are not allowed to actually build character abilities flexibly.

They don't want to. Hero is more like a programming language than a program. They want to fight monsters and role-play, not read through two 400+ page books trying to figure out how to do this stuff. Hell, if it's taking me the GM this much effort to make an attack that knocks someone over, how do you expect a friend to manage who I've just invited round to try this thing called a role-playing game? Trust me - I know who I game with a lot better than you do!

 

The primary reason you are getting many suggestions over four pages is not that it is tough to do, but because there are an array of ways to do it, each just a bit different, so we have spent four pages narrowing it down to options that fit your criteria. "Easy and quick" would have been Doc D's post right after you first mentioned knocking a target down - add "does knockdown" to the attack.

With respect, that doesn't for reasons given above - I don't know how to cost it because I don't want knockdown to be a general rule in the system. And as regards the suggestion that I'm dismissing lots of solutions, I honestly find the Martial Arts Maneouvres system in its entirety really confusing. Possibly just Linked Legsweep is the way to go, but rightly or wrongly, I genuinely struggle to understand all these rules and know when I've got it right. You talked about me discussing Multiform in the thread. I finally figured out where I was going wrong with that power after a LOT of re-reading and headaches - it's because there is a typo in the cost section of the Multiform power. It says "the most expensive form" and the body of the power description goes to some lengths to say that a character's "True Form" is one of their forms. The cost section should say "the most expensive ALTERNATE form", but it doesn't. I'm guessing that you've been playing Hero for a long time, but I am new to it and things like that throw me. I'm not embarrassed to say I struggle understanding all this stuff. It's very complex. In fact, it brings us back around to the beginning of this post where someone is lost through too many options. Give me two ways to do something, I'll manage somehow. I have around six in this thread and lack the tools to evaluate between them all. You see where I'm coming from?

 

If you want it to be D&D, play D&D!

The problem with D&D 5e is that whilst it is simple, it has all the balance of a one-legged man in a landslide, is about as granular as a boulder and due it's maddening d20 "curve" and Advantage / Disadvantage mechancic (roll twice and pick the most favourable / unfavourable) is about as predictable as throwing darts at a wall. Hero 6e has the downside that it is very complicated, but compensates by being fantastic in many, many ways. What I'm trying to do is not go back to D&D, but get my Complexity Payments out of the way upfront so that I can enjoy all the good stuff it offers. I want to have my cake and eat it, basically.

 

Do you want it to always be the same penalty to the roll? Like, when hit the target rolls at -3? Or do you want it to be based on the amount of damage done?

By far I want it to be the former. Whilst that might seem odd, I'm intending for powers like this to superceded as characters advance. So this is the first Bear form. As they advance, druids get access to the Great Bear and then Dire Bear versions of the power. Which will have higher strength but I can also re-calculate the power specifically for that form so the simplicity of a static -3 (for example) is pure benefit and no downside.

 

Change Environment is the classic "make a DEX Roll or fall prone" Power. If you want a constant value, buy that much. Forcing a roll costs 3 points for -1, so -3 would be 9 points. If you want a variable amount, buy a larger value (say, -10) and add a Limitation, like "Max penalty equal to BODY done."

 

You would add the Instant (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), and Linked To Paw Smash (-1/2) or whatever you call the combined attack. The real cost would be (9 / 2.5) 3.6, which rounds to 4 Real Points. That would add to the cost of the Paw Smash, so it would look something like:

 

Paw Smash: HKA, 1d6 vs. PD (2d6 with STR) (Real Cost: 15 points) plus Change Environment (fall prone, -3 to STR or DEX Roll, whichever is better) (9 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Instant (-1/2), Linked to HKA (-1/2) (Real Cost: 4 points). Total Real Cost: 19 points. END Cost: 2 (+1 if 10 or 15 STR used).

 

That does exactly it.

 

Edit: This assumes the bear has 15 STR, which costs 1 END; the HKA costs 1 END, and the Change Environment costs 1 END. If the bear has more STR, you can add whatever the bear's STR damage is; if he has 20 STR, he'll spend 1 for the HKA, 2 for the STR, and 1 for the CE, to do a total of 2d6+1. It could be rewritten thusly:

 

Paw Smash: 2d6 melee Killing (includes Strength); when hit, target must make STR or DEX Roll at -3 or fall prone. END Cost: 3.

Thank you. A hundred times thank you. This is by far the simplest in play, imo. The player makes an attack. If they hit, target must make a Dex "save". I think I will go with Str over Dex as you suggest because I like the thematic and game consequences of that. I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate you actually writing it out like that with the costs as well.

 

I'm sorry to people generally in the thread if I appear to rail against the Hero system. It's a truly remarkable system. I just get frustrated a bit trying to work out some things which feel like they ought to be simple but are not obvious to me. Sometimes when you make complex things simple, you make simple things complex. It's a principle of design that is hard to get away from. But I have played many, many different role-playing game systems and Hero 6e is one of the three best systems I have ever seen and by far the best of its type. (The other two systems have different goals and are very different).

 

Thank you very much to everyone who has taken the time to reply to this thread - every post in it has taught me something about the system and I appreciate it.

[Hugh Neilson]

In the above, you listed out Grab, Trip, Disarm, Legsweep, Multiple Attack and Combined Attack. In my scenario the player is sitting across from me and saying something like "Should I try to bite the knight which might work or be more defensive and knock him over so he can't attack me so well?" Maybe they do some very quick arithmetic on the two scenarios.

The only one on that list they do not have access to by default is a legsweep. And they could Combined Attack the Bite and Paw Swipe, or Multiple attack with either or both 

 

But I would only put the common tactics the player is considering, and the obvious ones, on each sheet. When the Wizard asks “Hey, can I knock someone down with a Push Spell”, or the Fighter wants to Trip someone, or the Bear wants to Bear Hug, then we can pull the rules out and design a Push spell, work through the Trip or Grab maneuver, etc. And we might get an outlet for xp if they want to be better at this newly considered option (or the Wizard wants a new spell).

 

Learning only the rules that have a direct impact now or in the near future is WAY easier than digesting all the rules, and the books have a good Table of Contents and Index if something does crop up at the table.

 

Which works absolutely fine for me and is what I've been asking for. But I don't know how to cost it. The system says "here are knockdown rules you can use" but it's just an option that you turn on or off system wide. It's not a Power or an Advantage that I can add. There are things that adjust how it works, but no cost for actually adding it as a special feature of an attack. The above is what I am wanting to do. I don't know how to cost it.

OK, first I think the Change Environment better fits your vison, so I would go with that.

 

I am sure the “how to” is up there somewhere, but it is buried deep.

 

You’ve looked at Knockback, so you know how it, and Knockdown, would work if you went that route. Since, in your game, Knockback is not used generally, you would add it to a power with the +1/4 advantage “Does Knockback”. Because it is on an attack, not a discrete power, it would be a Naked Advantage. So let’s assume our Bear would normally inflict a 1 1/2d6 Killing Attach with its claws (25 Active Points, 5 Damage Classes). You would pay 1/4 x 25 AP = 6.25, round down to 6, points. But maybe you expect a lot of Buff-type effects, and the Bear may, at times reach a .3d6 Killing Attack with its claws. In that case, you might pay 45 x 1/4 = 11(.25) so the maximum damage will still do Knockdown.

 

What I'm trying to do is not go back to D&D, but get my Complexity Payments out of the way upfront so that I can enjoy all the good stuff it offers. I want to have my cake and eat it, basically.

A common comment from experienced gamers is that complexity in Hero is all up front, in the character builds. That’s very true. It’s also probably another reason to go the CE route rather than Knockdown, really, as Knockdown introduces a new mechanic where CE does not.

I see a lot of benefits to Chris’ CE writeup, including:

 

- The use of a STR or DEX roll at -3 will not vary, which matches your preference;

 

- The use of CE means the targets make a skill/characteristic roll, a common mechanic in the game, where the Knockdown mechanic would be a completely separate system;

 

- The CE [Change Environment [(fall prone, -3 to STR or DEX Roll, whichever is better) (9 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Instant (-1/2), Linked to rest of attack (-1/2) (Real Cost: 4 points)] does not have to be scaled to the attack it is linked to – it costs 9 points (and 1 END), and 9/2.5 = 4 real points. If you want to enhance it (maybe the Great Bear imposes a -5 penalty), the cost is always 3x penalty to roll = Active points, and Active Points/2.5 = Real Points. END is 1/10 Active. It does not depend on how much damage the Paw Swipe does (see above), and is easier to work with the damage adding rules.

 

That may not seem like much, but it allows you to add another Damage Class to the Swipe, or make the Knockdown a -4 Penalty instead of -3, without adjusting the other half of the attack. Or, if high powered attacks in your starting game are, say, a 2d6 or 2d6+1 Killing Attack, you might want the Bite to be in that range, and the Paw Swipe to be a little lower – easy enough to reduce the Killing Attack while keeping the CE/Knockdown aspect constant.

 

Now quick, go put it on the character sheet before we get a dozen other builds that are each “better” in the eye of their designer! And if it doesn’t work like you’re expecting when the game starts, there’s always helpful people (sometimes way too many) willing to chime in (often too loudly) on the Boards.

[Chris Goodwin]

You can ask three people how to do something and get a dozen or more different answers.