Jump to content

Sean Waters

HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sean Waters last won the day on September 14 2017

Sean Waters had the most liked content!


About Sean Waters

  • Rank
    Glitch in the system
  • Birthday 02/15/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    : Behind you

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This being Hero... To expand on Killer Shrike's comment, what you can also do, if you want cheap, if just add 'Detect Magic' to the sight group and that allows you to see magic like you can see other stuff: it would be blocked by all the things that block sight and you would not be able to see magic in the dark, but it is cheap. That is also easy to administer in-game because everyone knows how sight works - it would just be a bit like The DiscWorld - people with Detect Magic can see Octarine as well as the other normal colours. All you really need then is 'Detect Magic (Sight Group)' for 5 points and you get a PER Roll - probably pretty good already as the character presumably uses Magic. I would not bother with discriminatory, unless you really want, as normal sight is already 'partially discriminatory' (a phrase that gets my hackles up every time and a wholly unnecessary complication) and you can discriminate plenty with normal sight. Another approach would be to buy N-Ray Vision, again link it to the Sight Group, because I'm cheap, (which gives you all the modifiers you need for free) and that will allow you to see magical things inside boxes, on the other side of the wall and so on. I mean, technically N-Ray does not let you see Magic (that is, strictly a Detect as mentioned above) but if you were to say you can see Magic with your N-Ray but not non-magic I'd handwave that. You know there is a magical sword on the other side of the door, it is not obvious though that it is strapped to an enormous Barbarian. I mean, you don't need to link it to Sight. Maybe you can smell magic, or it makes a distinctive whine?
  2. I'm with you - my general approach is deregulation of the rules and regulation by the GM, where it is needed. I just wish the rules avoided this sort of unnecessary confusion in, what I assume, is an attempt to avoid abuse. Personally I think a little abuse, judiciously applied, can be quite refreshing. I believe the rules should either ban adding powers in the same or different frameworks, or allow it, (with 'allow it' being favourite) maybe with a side bar to advise on ways to ameliorate the worst excesses.
  3. Has anyone suggested punching the target unconscious and then shooting him? Only guns sound rubbish. Ultimately you can only improve your chance to hit something by increasing your OCV, decreasing their DCV, using an AoE or having more goes. You can Spread an attack (6E2/49), but that may violate the hard cap on OCV. You can't generally decrease an opponent's DCV on your own unless you sneak up on him or PRE attack him (which does not require a roll to hit!) You therefore would seem to need an AoE attack, either on the basic gun attack (which could be a naked advantage if you are in an Equipment game) or on a suppress/drain if you want to make the target easier to hit for everyone, not just you. As a side note the Suppression Attack would work if the target was moving because you get multiple attacks, potentially (and the fact that you can stand still in a field of Suppression Fire and never be hit is a definite lacuna in the rules), but you can do the same with Multiple Attack and that is kind of what is being described - firing several shots to increase your chances of hitting - the chances of hitting are increased because you get more than one go at it rather than because the DCV of the opponent is reduced, but it has much the same effect, at least one on one. It does not help if the intention is to make a target easier to hit for your mate, but that is what coordinated attacks are for.
  4. You can do this, at least to an extent, with campaign build guidelines: if you use Active Point caps on powers - and there are pros and cons to that - you can say that the entire cost of a MP has to conform to the cap, as if it was a single power, or you can come up with something along those lines if you feel the consequences of that would be too harsh. Of course the rules on MPs are such that, as well as spectacularly making no sense, you can always buy two frameworks and have them add together to make a bigger power. What? No you can't! Well, actually... Whilst the rules specifically forbid slots in a MP adding to each other or slots in other frameworks and uses attacks as examples, it goes on to say: A character may have two Power Frameworks, or two slots in the same Framework, that both add to or affect the same ability bought outside any Power Framework (or the same Combat or Martial Maneuver, or the like). For example, a character could have a Multipower slot of +10 PD, and a Variable Power Pool slot of +15 PD, that both added to his PD, since his PD is not in any Power Framework and the two powers are not adding to each other. First of all how are the 10 and the 15 not adding to each other? Secondly, why can't I buy 6d6 Blast in a slot in MP1 and the same in a slot in MP2 and, so long as I buy 1d6 Blast outside a framework, have them all add together, based on the same odd contortion of logic? Anyway: AP caps. Worth considering.
  5. Then again, in the military, people either have to do what you say you you have to do what they say, and hard feelings be damned. I am unlikely to get upset about anything you say about me or my opinions or, if I do, I'll calm down before posting a reply: we have known each other for a very long time through these boards and I am definitely older and in some ways wiser. It may not be a coincidence that Hero does not have a skill that is directly analogous to 'Diplomacy'. I feel I ought to put a smiley face in there, but I'm not going to.
  6. Yep, I read through. My responses tend to be either pithy or prolonged. You had the pithy version, so... First of all you have to look at what you were responding to, for context. MPs are too cheap was the point Toxxus was concerned about because you get a raft of different things for relatively few character points, which in turn encourages that build behaviour behaviour. Your response was, well you only need a few things for a well rounded character, but more options give you, well, more options. You then start talking about vectors. I’m not sure what you mean by that, despite your explanation, hence my comment about ‘if you mean what you seem to mean’. I might have to jump about a bit here, but you end up saying you are not overly concerned if a character has 5 flavours of lethal attack, but you are more concerned about multiple vectors of attack. Now, I’m assuming when you talk about ‘5 flavors of lethal’ you don’t mean 5 slots each containing the same KA, but in different colours – you mean 5 powers based on Killing Attack with different advantages, so, maybe: 1. RKA 2. HKA 3. 1 hex AoE RKA 4. Radius AoE RKA 5. No Range Modifier RKA …something like that? I think that your vectors are a red herring. Being able to throw a normal or killing attack is far less of a problem than being able to throw an AoE Blast as well as a ‘normal’ Blast, for very little extra cost. With the former, you are still targeting DCV of the target character and you have to guess which of the attacks is going to be more effective (Hint: the KA, over time), but with the AoE plus Blast combo you can hit high DCV targets and low DCV targets and it is usually pretty obvious which is which, at least after the first round of combat. Similarly you say that each flavour of exotic attack is a vector – I’ve not seen a MP stocked entirely with Entangle or Flash variations – there will be something damaging in there too. AVAD being a ‘vector’ is also problematic – having a multipower of AVADs, all presumably stopped by something different is again trying to be effective against everything, and, IIRC, frowned upon. I can understand that impulse, I can, and I accept that some MPs are more effective than others, depending on what they are stocked with, but the problem that creates, to my mind, is the one-man team: I don’t really need anyone else because I can do it all – I have an answer to every situation. You go on to say you are more worried by a character with multiple defence options than multiple attacks. The reason that people want to build multiple defences is because of multiple attacks, especially if characters take a ‘Dial-A-Gun’ approach. The point I’d make is that, in most cases, characters will be part of a team, whether PC or NPC. The team should cover all the bases, or a good number of them – the individual characters, generally, shouldn’t. That is not to say that the occasional versatile character should not appear, but it should not be the norm – and the relative cheapness of MPs encourages people to use them to cover any and all perceived weaknesses rather than, in some way, making them simply more interesting. You’ve already made a substantial investment, why not chuck in, for very little more, a Missile Deflection (you only use it occasionally anyhow), or a Barrier (it is Fire and Forget) or a Teleport to overcome Entangles or a Flash or a Drain or a Healing or…well, why not have multiple MPs to give you a huge range of potential abilities, or, well, whatever, really. The flip side is that MPs are point efficient, so you are not giving up much power (and if you play AP limits or maximum DCs, possibly none at all) for a whole raft of new shiny toys that do not necessarily encourage team play. In addition, especially in 6E where the base points for a build have increased, without the overall power levels necessarily having increased, the investment in a few MP slots is far less of a burden. My comment was that the idea of MPs is not a bad thing mechanically, but as with most things in Hero, it is how you use them in practice, and the effect that has on the game. It has been my experience that a clever player, or GM can justify more or less anything as being ‘in concept’, and some do. I admit to doing all the things you are concerned about, and I would be surprised if you did not admit the same. So, to circle back to the start, Toxxus raised a valid point: MPs are a cheap way to get extra powers and that means that to compete, most characters have one. My point was not that they are too cheap per se but that price point does tend to encourage overuse, to the point where many character builds will have an MP or VPP. Rather than making characters nuanced, it becomes an almost necessary part of every build. I don’t agree that “A different way to look at it is, any more than you need of something is surplus to requirements.” Unless you are suggesting everyone ‘needs’ a MP packed with options. Which would be bad. Another way to consider this is that the existence of the MP reduces the need for players to make hard choices about powers. Unless you are playing in a heavily CP restricted game with relatively high DC, Defence and Movement expectations, you can pretty much always afford the extra points for a few MP slots. Ultimately we are probably disagreeing on definitions and detail more than principle, but that is where you will find the Devil.
  7. Hmm. I'm not sure I can get behind the idea that any power that is more than you need is surplus to requirements, at least if you mean what you seem to mean. Very few actual characters built by players are ever going to buy a NND as their only major attack: it is going in a MP. You also almost never see an Entangle outside a MP, or a Flash. There are many other examples. The problem with MPs is not the mechanic, as such, but the way it seems to be habitually used - to cover a wide range of bases to make characters effective in a wide range of situations because that is play-efficient rather than because that realises a concept. A lot of example characters I have seen are guilty of that. You get powers with really complex builds that are there for synergy rather than anything else or powers that are situational. You'd never splash out on that particular power if you were paying full points. Well, almost never. Remember Starburst (I think that was his name, could have been Opal Fruit) from 1eChampions? He had a MP with an attack, defence and movement power in it, IIRC. He was damn interesting to run.
  8. In reverse order...I was playing in a cyberpunk game, years ago. Can't really remember which one. Possibly Cyberpunk Next Year. God, that's depressing, isn't it? Anyway, they used exploding dice. Well, they did after we'd dosed them with Nitrogen Tri-iodide. Seriously though, you roll a d10, add it to your stat. If you roll a 10 you roll again and add, and so on. First roll of the game, the very first roll, I had to make a Perception Roll to see if I spotted some trucks rolling over the desert toward our compound. It was an Easy Task. I rolled five 10s and a 2. I could have seen ants rolling over the desert half a mile away. Mind you, I do like to mark a roll of 3 in Hero. if I was GMing you would have formed a special bond with one of the horses and possibly acquired it as a follower.
  9. I'd assumed that this was axiomatic. I make characters spend 120 CP on eating utensils and anyone who wants the ability to skin a cat is going to wind up points poor. What?
  10. Pish pash posh. We worry too much about balance. 1. Hero is not a balanced game, much as we would like it to be. Two characters built on the same points are not equally effective: what determines how effective they are is the game they are run in. If the game is very dungeon and combat oriented then the subtle diplomat is going to be useless, or nearly so. 2. In pretty much every other game, equipment is free or, at least, only costed by in-game currency and in-game availability. This does not tip the game over because it is not just PCs who have access to all this loot. 3. The attempts to bring balance to the rules are about as successful as the attempts to bring balance to The Force, and we all know where that leads: Jar-Jar Binks. As an example I was reading about killing attacks, while I prepare a rant, and saw this gem (1E242): Increased STUN multiplier (+¼): This Power Advantage increases the STUN Multiplier of a Killing Attack. Characters can purchase it multiple times, with no limit to how many times they can buy it, but must have the GM’s permission to buy it more than once for any particular attack. Sheesh. 4. What stops the pointy hatted Wizard buying a bow and using his magic to enhance his ability? Nothing, but all the NPCs can do the same thing. What stops the heavily built Barbarian buying a sword then using skill to enhance his ability? Nothing either, but no one is getting upset about that, are they? Another example from also 1E242: Swordmaster’s Skill: HKA +1d6 (adds to any sword-based HKA), reduced endurance (0 END; +½) (22 active points); only with swords (-½), requires a DEX roll (-½). total cost: 11 points. Whilst I do not think that is a very good example build, it does illustrate the point. Badly, but it illustrates it. 5. RAW Hero makes you pay for bases. I, well, I don't even know where to start. I've never used that whole section. You tell me the last time a band of adventurers took over an abandoned keep then failed to improve their fighting ability for 6 months to pay for it. 24th of Never, I believe. 6. We've had the discussion elsewhere about why swords should be Character Point free and spells are not. Well, why shouldn't spells be CP free too? Sure, you don't want every angry mage running round with an 200 point Apocalypse Spell just because they got invited to Neverland as a child and had to spend the hush money somehow, but in any sensibly constructed game-world there will be restrictions on supply, or you could hybrid it: everyday swords and spells are cash only; all the special stuff, you have to splash out for. Just like in Neverland. My advice to GMs is to fix it in the mix i.e. pitch the game so that it is challenging to these particular PCs and also not be afraid to tell a player 'I don't care if it is technically rules legal, no you can't, because I said so.' If a player makes a sad face, well, you'll just have to find a way to live with yourself. Hopefully, however, they will accept that it is wrong to ruin the game for everyone else just so they can go on a mad ego trip. Obviously being on a mad ego trip is the GM's job. Happy Goram Valentine's Day.
  11. Just to toot the 'roll high' horn, contested combat rolls could be done on a straight 3d6+OCV vs 3d6+DCV - no need to modify both sides equally. Technically you could say the same with a 'roll low' mechanic and have OCV-3d6 vs DVC-3d6 as the +11 to both sides cancels out - trouble is that you then run the risk of negative numbers, and that is going to cause consternation and confusion, or FUD as Killer Shrike recently styled it
  12. At present you hit a DCV equal to your OCV on an 11, which is 55% chance, IIRC. If you had people rolling for both attack and defence (in the way you do Skill v Skill) - which might be appropriate for a duel or somesuch - the attack would logically be taken first and the defence would then be a response: assuming even OCV and DCV for all concerned and rolls of 11, ATTACKER would roll 11, hit the DCV (so the attack is a success) then DEFENDER would roll, and would also succeed on an 11-, so the attack would miss. This would mean that there is a 55% chance to hit and a 55% chance to avoid a successful hit. That would mean that there is only a 30% chance of a successful hit. What we'd need to do is roll simultaneously rather than serially: you have OCV+11-3d6 vs DCV+11-3d6, with ties going to the attacker, to emulate the current chance of success. The other way you could do this, to perhaps speed things up for the GM is to have your NPC characters 'take 11' on attacks, and the PCs roll to avoid their attacks - so a NPC with an OCV of 6 would have an attack of 17, and the player would then roll DCV+11-3d6 and try and get 18 or more to avoid the attack (or, more neatly, roll DCV+10-3d6 and equal or exceed that attack). Obviously when players are attacking, they roll to hit against DCV as usual.
  13. You could have created a character of a given concept in any edition of Champions or Hero, and they would have played similarly. You can certainly game the rules, but then you always could and always will be able to: even actual reality is played better by some people than others. The difference would be that in 1st edition Champions the character would have been mechanically woollier (to use a technical term), 6e more precisely defined. You had to bend the rules or just make stuff up in Original Champions to get some of what you wanted, 6e has almost all of the bases covered, but they are both recognisably the same system, which is remarkable: almost every other game system that has run to several editions that I can think of has made major changes to the way it works over the years. We should probably rejoice now.
  14. They are exactly the same, mathematically, so why present them in different ways? One mechanic for resolving everything makes the game easier to learn, and the rules section shorter. Funnily enough a lot of games have adopted a very similar mechanic to Hero, including D&D.
  • Create New...