Jump to content

Killer Shrike

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    13,854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Killer Shrike

  1. I started with 4e, and loved it dearly. 5e and 5er came along and fueled a later day Renaissance of gaming that marks out my personal highwater mark. But objectively, as a game system, I like 6e the best.
  2. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    The main thing, as I recall it from back in the day, was that 1e (and I think 2e but don't know from personal experience) was more focused on mechwarriors, while 3e was scaled more at the people level and encompassed other kinds of character concepts and was for that reason a broader rpg experience...however the playerbase for the most part were obviously attracted to the setting for the mecha and mechwarriors and generally speaking weren't that interested in a bigger tent. From my perspective, mechanically, 3e was a better system. I haven't played it for...uh...well not quite 2 decades but at least 15, 16 years or so...and thus im going off memory but that's how I recall it.
  3. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    Definitely a bit of a culture clash from the Clans, but at the end of the day they've got giant mecha to fight the non-Clans giant mecha. Personally I was meh on the clans but people who like them really like them.
  4. Killer Shrike

    GURPS

    I basically agree with this. Personally, I found GURPS to be a system of diminishing returns, while I've always found the Hero System to be one of increasing returns. And that is a fractal statement.
  5. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    {shrug}...I was just trying to be helpful, YMMV. The setting has rubber science, a little bit of grimdark (neo-feudalistic inner sphere, some crapsack worlds in the periphery, and clan caste angst, and combat can be quite gritty and lethal), powered armor and 'mechs (elementals and mechwarriors)...which ticks off most of the criteria you listed. It is lacking in non-humans, but that can be tacked on easily enough using the lifepath mechanics and traits. Psionics, massive fleets, and planet killers weren't in your original ask. I personally wouldn't call the system bland; but that's obviously subjective and also depends on what edition you are referring to. The first edition had problems and I skipped the 2nd edition, but I found the 3rd edition to be serviceable / utilitarian...sort of similar to cyberpunk 2020...this edition is founded on a lifepath character creation model and I'm not a huge fan of that style of character creation but I thought it worked ok in this context. The current edition is called "A Time of War" and I've heard bad things about it but not looked at it myself. Lifepaths just got me thinking about Traveller. I never really got into it, but it's got psionics, aliens, etc. Might work for you and Mongoose printed an edition a few years ago. Oh, and I just remembered, there was a Traveller Hero licensed product back in the 5e days. I think one or more people from the Hero Forums were involved. I never saw a copy personally, but it existed. Personally, I liked Dreampod 9's Heavy Gear better, but I have some nostalgic feels for the BattleTech / mechwarrior setting. Also, since the essence of the setting is very fluffy, it converts well to other game systems. I've seen a decent Savage Worlds hack and a few different Fate hacks (though, for me, even though I like Fate a lot...mechwarrior just doesn't seem like a good systemic fit). Obviously, the Hero System can do it (maybe better?)...I didn't care for Robot Warriors back in the day, but using the vehicle rules straight up...Ultimate Vehicle, Star Hero...toss it in a blender...not that hard to gin something up for a GM willing to put in the time. EDIT: looks like TheQuestionMan put together a link list on these very forums back in 2005...
  6. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    If you already have a group invested / committed to an ongoing campaign, maintenance time to keep the campaign going may very well be minimal. It also depends on the time available and the life situations of the players. Though I'm currently taking a break between gigs, I'm normally extremely busy, working 60+ hour weeks routinely, and I have a wife and two kids. Any prep time I might have for a game is to be had in the early AM at the cost of the already unhealthy amount of sleep I might get in a given week. My players tend to be in similar situations, busy with life and families. I could elaborate, but the underlying result is that everyone's most precious commodity at this point in our lives is time. Additionally, when we manage to bring the stars into alignment so that we can actually get together for 4 or so mostly uninterrupted hours to play something, a lighter system that moves fast is preferable to a chunkier system with lots of grit. My life situation may change in the future, as my kids get older and my career slows down, and the same is true of players actual and potential. But currently, more nimble games are the order of the day for us.
  7. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    Sounds like mechwarrior to me.
  8. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    Hero does have a bias towards the defender, but there are a lot of ways to adjust the system to any desired level of danger. I've mentioned it before on these forums, but I wrote up some coverage of what I called "Lethality Options" a long time ago and they are still relevant. http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeLethalityOptions.aspx
  9. Killer Shrike

    Hero Does It Better

    The Hero System definitely offers more options than most game systems for dialing things up or down to suit a desired outcome, and in the hands of a skilled GM who knows what they want for the campaign they are running that level of control can afford a "better" result than if using a system that does not offer such tunability. However, while I've had a lot of success over the years using the Hero System for a wide variety of genres at a similarly wide variety of power levels and grittiness, I'm also not blind to the cost of the game in my time as the GM or the learning curve for the average player. The question often isn't "does the Hero System do this better?"...to which the answer often is "yes" or at least "maybe". Instead the question more typically is "does this other system do it well enough and are there people who will agree to play it with me?". If time and players were abundant, I would likely still be using the Hero System for everything. But as they aren't, often times I'm looking for the game system I can wring the most amount of fun out of with the least amount of effort. Sad but true.
  10. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    Superhero vs Fantasy, if I recall correctly.
  11. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    And it may not be a huge problem for you. It's a problem for me because when I run a campaign, I generally have story arcs and at least a framework of a plot or grand plan as to what the campaign is about. There's some specific inflection points (indicated by nodes in a wire frame flow chart typically) that form the skein that I structure the overarching campaign around. Game play as driven by the PC's will tend to go astray, but eventually I'll route them back into one of the inflection points, or add an inflection point that segues back into the original wire frame. I'll make periodic tweaks as necessary to accommodate things that occurred in play or as better ideas occur to me, but overall the end result is usually recognizable when compared to the original blueprint I set forth. I intend for the players, at least, to get to the end of the story and ideally with most of the starting player characters. Random TPK's or other campaign ending events are a issue for me because beyond just ending the campaign it also wastes the time I spent in "preproduction" to borrow a cinematic term. I might be able to salvage some elements of it for a later campaign, but it is better all around to avoid blowing up the campaign. Similarly, as a player, I don't enjoy playing in games where people just show up every week and we do random, sloppy, episodic things with no goal. I don't want quantity or gratuitous schlock, I want quality or at least depth. I want a Kubrick or Jackson plot not a Bay or Snyder plot. If the GM isn't bringing the long term continuity, I bring it and push long-play considerations in the form of my character's goals. Random TPK's that aren't in service of anything other than just allowing random chance to entirely drive the plot are a frustrating and undesirable outcome for me. Now, I know of course that many people play that way...just show up, roll some dice, see what happens. Like going to a casino. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, what the dice gods giveth the dice gods may taketh away. I don't like to roll dice to see WHAT happens, I prefer to roll dice to see HOW it happens. The goal of each scene is to get to the next scene and keep the story going. Thus I don't like failure (TPK in this case) to mean there is no next scene, I prefer to instead fail forward into the next scene. The difference between an RPG and a wargame is primarily continuity of character and setting. In a wargame, your little toy soldiers fight and die, and you reset for the next battle. In an RPG your little toy soldiers are more fully realized as individuals with motivations and personality and they are on a story arc of self improvement, getting better as they go along. If they die, they don't reset. Their story ends. The threat of character death is important to provide stakes, to provide risk. But as RPGs are character driven, the movement of the story is entirely wrapped around the player characters, and thus a total party kill is almost always also a total campaign kill. It serves the interests of no one in the group, save players that may want the story to end...in which case why are they even playing in the game? It's an elective activity. Presumably the people showing up week to week and investing their time into the campaign are doing so because they enjoy it and want to see the campaign continue. So, that's why I personally give serious consideration to situations with a high probability of TPK and tend to avoid or at least handle with care those situations. Campaign premises that are built around a concept that by its very nature has a persistent high probability of TPK, such as hard sci fi space travel in a hostile universe, are problematic for me. Obviously, other peoples mileage may vary, and the show up and roll dice and oh well you all died style of gamer will have less of an issue with it. As far as "escape pods and deus ex machina"...hard sci fi and deus ex machina are incompatible concepts. Rigorous scientific accuracy and the classical refuge of a uncreative author to contrive an unearned solution via supernatural or inexplicable intervention are obviously wrong for each other from the jump. Escape pods might be plausible for some situations in space and work fine in less rigorous sci fi, but in hard sci fi escape pods aren't really that practical. They are a concept that gets carried along to SF from time to time because our parallel of space travel is nautical travel, and large nautical ships have lifeboats. The thing about that is, if a nautical ship sinks you can float away in the lifeboat. Space ships don't sink. They blow up, get pulled into hazardous situations, or become uninhabitable. In many cases, whatever issue is affecting the spaceship and is causing you to get into the escape pod would also affect the escape pod. So, not a slam dunk. Basically, the key idea here is, in hard sci fi whatever "out" you provide to avoid TPK should hold up to logical scrutiny; as a sub-genre based upon verisimilitude anything that significantly undermines verisimilitude within a campaign also undermines the campaign itself. At the very least, careful consideration is due...it is not a sub-genre that lends itself to winging it.
  12. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    Sure, I'm not saying that TPK is the only possible outcome, I'm saying that if it is on the menu at all should be worked out in advance, and whether the answer is yes or no either has a generally problematic impact on a campaign featuring heavy use of ships traveling through a hostile medium.
  13. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    For me, there are many problems with space combat in the context of a roleplaying game. I don't really care to break them all down, so I'll focus here on my main issue with it. If a RPG involves ships (or analogs) and player characters move around through some kind of medium that is hostile to organic life while in them, either it is on the table for the player characters to die horribly as the logical consequence of something going wrong with the ship they are on...whether that be malfunction or enemy attack or whatever, or it is not on the table at all for the player characters to die in that way. Now to be clear, it might asymmetrically be TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE for non-player characters to die horribly due to a ship mishap. That's a non-issue. The crux of the question hinges on player characters dying due to a ship mishap. If it is not on the table for the players to die in that way, then any supposedly dangerous situation that happens while they are on a ship is not really a danger. In a RPG trying to emulate a fictional work such as Star Trek or Farscape or Legends of Tomorrow or Firefly, it is tacitly understood by the players that any apparent danger to the player characters or their ship itself while in space is just a pretense for an episodic adventure...the threat of danger and whatever needs to be done to avoid it is just a mcguffin or a call to action. But if that is not the focus of the gaming session, emulating a ship malfunction episode or similar genre trope, then events of that nature just seem like a time waster to me. If it IS on the table for players to die horribly due to ship mishap then the next question follows: is it on the table for ALL of the player characters to die horribly due to the same ship mishap? I.e...is it possible for the ship they are all on to explode (etc), killing them all at the same time? If the answer is NO then there is some kind of plot protection in place to prevent the TPK and probable end of the campaign. If there is plot protection in place, then only threats that might kill off one or two player characters at a time are possible. Since a sensibly equipped enemy vessel attacking the PC's ship could logically blow up their ship and kill them all, if its not allowed for all the PC's to die at once due to ship mishap it strongly limits the usability of enemy vessels capable of blowing them up. At any rate, great care and hoop-jumping must be taken either by the rules or the GM or both to avoid the TPK. This can be played around by being clever with particulars...maybe the PC's have clones, or are all on separate ships, or some kind of elaboration on ship design that somehow prevents one shot kills, or some other gyration. But any such sidestepping puts you back more or less at the same place as not allowing players to die in this way at all, from a story perspective. If the answer is YES, it is on the table for a mishap in space to potentially kill off all the player characters at once, then the player characters are basically flying around in a deathtrap. And if it does come to pass that a dice roll is failed (or an enemy's dice roll succeeds) and all of the player characters die and their ongoing story comes to an abrupt halt due to a randomized outcome, how will the players take it? Personally, I would feel distinctly unsatisfied if that were the way a space game I were running or playing in ended. So, for me, generally speaking ships in a space game are best used primarily as plot justification for transit between point A and point B, as a mobile HQ, and as a built in rallying point / shared motivation for player character who comprise the crew of or live on a ship together. Space battles in which the dice land as they may and anything up to and including TPK is possible are very risky affairs unless I just don't care if the campaign comes to a screeching halt...in which case why am I showing up to play in or run that campaign in the first place? That's the core of my issue particularly with hard sci fi space games...beyond the tedium of trying to simulate such a complex undertaking as space travel (much less space combat) and the dangers of floating in a pocket of technology through a hard vacuum, at the end of the day if the game system being used is fully simulating the innumerable ways my character's existence can come to an abrupt end using semi-random resolutions, it is simply a matter of time before a bad roll or chain reaction of some kind snuffs my character, or baring that forces the session to change from whatever it was going to be about to the process of trying to head off an inevitable doom due to lack of oxygen or radiation poisoning or space induced psychosis, etc.
  14. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    Lets talk about the statement "Unlike you, I would rather War game out resolutions than have it resolved with a couple of die rolls, and a description. " So...in all the wargames I've played, and also the style of rpg with a heavy focus on wargame elements (tactical maps and minis, highly detailed combat resolution, etc), dice rolls were involved (or cards that served a similar randomizing purpose). The "description" of outcomes in those games was present...but they were generally mostly asserted by rules text rather than by one or more of the players. ___ Once a player has initiated an action that requires dice based resolution in a game system, whether there is one roll, or an arbitrarily extended series of dice rolls by one or more players (including the GM) is basically irrelevant. In the end there will be an outcome; the number of dice rolls and the complexity necessary to resolve each dice roll to get to that outcome doesn't improve the finality of that outcome. In other words, if a system requires a series of back and forth contested rolls, each of which may have various modifiers, to arrive at a final outcome and the nature of that outcome is put to words by a chunk of rules text, that is not intrinsically a better system than one that boils all the circumstantial considerations of success or failure down to a single dice roll where the nature of the outcome is interpreted by one or more of the players (including the GM). You may of course prefer one style over the other, but in the end they differ mostly in means, not in motive.
  15. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    Lets talk about "a high level of abstraction". So, this is a basic building block of RPGs: One or more players convene to imagine events taking place in an imaginary setting populated by imaginary entities who are imagined to take actions to arrive at one or more imaginary outcomes. The nature of the imaginary setting, the specifics of the kinds of imaginary entities (characters, monsters, etc), what sorts of outcomes are permitted, and what sort of means for accomplishing those outcomes are possible tend to be the bulk or even the entirety of individual game systems printed text. Agreement on that text among the players forms the bulk of a social contract to govern the time they spend "playing" that game. I could noodle around the edges of that for hours, but to keep this focused lets agree that there is some kind of "character" who has some differentiating attributes specific to the game system that attempt to measure or define the character's ability to accomplish one or more things, and that there is some kind of task resolution guidance presented by the rules. A game system that says "to accomplish tasks, a player rolls one or more dice, which may be modified for a variety of reasons, and compares the outcome of the dice to some criteria to determine degree of success or failure" is offering a means to model or simulate events within the imaginary tableau of the game at a very high level of abstraction. Rolling dice to determine what happens when something is attempted is, in fact, about as abstract as it gets. Game systems with one or more rules are a formal system. Formal systems are generally agreed to "represent a system of abstract thought". The idea that reducing a complex idea to a die roll is less abstract than reasoning from genre conventions, or reasoning from dramatic considerations aka "plot", or consensus, etc, is not born out.
  16. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    Your theory re: lack of wargaming background vis a vis narrative game design doesn't seem to hold up, to me. Surely we can agree that it is entirely possible that some or even most game designers who produce games that focus on facets of roleplaying other than dice rolling exercises are not doing so due to a lack of experience (wargaming or otherwise) but rather because they are attempting to design a game that they believe some group of people (or perhaps themselves) will enjoy playing. I would hope that we could also agree that it is also possible that some gamers who enjoy playing games of that ilk do so because they like the things those games focus on, rather than from a position of ignorance of something, such as (in the case of your assertion) the multi-splendorous joys of wargaming. Why, take me as an example. In addition to being a roleplayer perchance I am also a wargamer (and a computer gamer, and a board gamer, and a card gamer, etc). I would venture that there are few who might successfully challenge me on my willingness to engage with "high-crunch" game systems of any variety; in fact I think it is fair to say that I like complexity more than most. And yet, I also like, play, and produce content for low-crunch and mid-crunch roleplaying games. And I know that I am not alone in this general category of "people with a wargaming background who like to play RPG's that are light on tactical map and dice roll off resolutions", as I've played with and also corresponded with fellow travelers upon that particular path over the years. Like most things, crunchiness / procedural resolution is on a spectrum and neither a game nor a game designer nor a gamer are required by some universal law to permanently reside only at one end or the other. It's entirely possible and even advantageous to be able to slide up and down that spectrum from time to time. Complexity / crunchiness is not a virtue unto itself; and lack of it is not a lack of virtue. In fact, the opposite could be argued; one might reasonably default to the position that when presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. William of Ockham thought so, at least. Lacking some qualitative measure by which to judge one way objectively better than another way, what's left is merely personal preference. And reasoning from the position of a personal preference to project attributes or assumptions upon a set of people who do not share that preference is often prejudicial. For instance, I personally don't begrudge other people their gaming preferences, and I don't judge them based upon those preferences. It's not a good thing or a bad thing to me that someone is a die-hard gamist or simulationist or hybrid thereof. I try not to jump to conclusions as to why they prefer what they prefer, or assume that if they had just experienced the things I have experienced they would hold a view closer to if not identical to my own. {shrug}
  17. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    I play wargames when I want to wargame. I play RPG's when I want to RPG. 😎
  18. Killer Shrike

    Superhero vs Fantasy

    +1 for Expanse; I love both the books and the tv show. Personally, I think hard sci fi doesn't really work very well for RPGs. Not saying it can't be done, but I've never been in to it... Space Fantasy or a narrative / dramatic approach (at least as far as space travel & combat goes) works much better IMO. Same thing for nautical or Age of Sail adventures, really.
  19. Killer Shrike

    Tying Movement and Range to a physical attack?

    Premise: either you adapt the source material to the existing game system and accept that some resolutions will play out differently using that system than they would in the source material, OR you adapt the existing game system to match the source material and accept that some resolutions will play out differently than they normally would when using the unmodified version of the game system in the interests of matching the source material. It sounds like you want to do the later, adapt the game system to match the source material. When I do projects like this, adapting ideas to a game system or vice versa, I first make a bullet point list of certain ideas that I want to cover to capture the "feel" I'm going for. Too few and its not worth bothering with, too many and maybe I'm overreaching or need to refine my scope a bit. Then I go down the list and for each bullet point I jot down how I think the existing system naturally handles that idea or could be bent to do so, if relevant. Any remaining bullet points that resist easy solution I then group into two categories...a) those that directly contradict or "go against the grain" of the game system in question and b) those that simply fall into a gap in the game system's coverage or are outside the scope of what the game system attempts to deal with. Those bullet points that fall into a rules gap are usually simple to solve by just bolting on some custom mechanics. Those that directly go against the nature of the game system are trickier; too many of them and its a clear indicator that the game system is the wrong choice for the source material, one or two and maybe it can be worked around or possibly I might just decide to live without the problematic ideas the bullet points represent and drop them from the adaptation or tweak to a more solvable analogue. However, I might decide to hack the game system to work differently to allow for the ideas represented by the problematic bullet points. Moving into this specific project...I played street fighter style fighter games a long time ago in the 80's and through the mid 90's, but they were never my favorite. I preferred the Tekken / Virtua Fighter / Soul Edge / Soul Caliber style of 3D fighter much more, and stopped playing that sort of game entirely sometime after the PS2 era because I stopped buying consoles and going to arcades. With that preamble and disclaimer out of the way, if I were to make a punch list of bullet points that I would want to capture in an arcade fighter RPG it might look something like this: combos power meter of some kind; possibly tied to combo must follow block abilities every fighter should have at least one finisher move and / or signature ability If I were going to do this using the Hero System, I would consider...what feature of the Hero System lends itself particularly well to doing this as opposed to using some other game system? And are there any official or fan-based resources available for the Hero System that already cover what I'm looking to do? The answer to these two questions is...custom Martial Maneuvers and Powers, and in 6e*, the Hero System Martial Arts (HSMA6e) book. In addition to offering a plethora of existing martial arts "styles"...aka packages of maneuvers and related abilities...it also offers a bunch of examples of made up styles and guidance to make your own made up styles (perfect for wackier street fighters), and of course Chapter 2 starts off with a subsystem to build custom maneuvers allowing unusual styles and signature moves to be easily defined. *In earlier editions of the game, Ninja Hero, Ultimate Martial Artist, etc offered basically the same content. If you want something beyond maneuver based martial arts, it also offers copious guidance and write ups for abilities using the Powers rules. It also has deep rules coverage assessing how existing rules can be applied or reinterpreted from the perspective of a martial arts focused game, and extending the rules to cover certain concepts such as combos (which this book refers to more generally as "sequence attacks"). It also has a one-column write up on "video game martial arts" in the "martial arts subgenre" section. So, personally, I would sit down with HSMA6e and write out 8-10 characters modeling street fighter type archetypes, or just direct conversions of existing IP characters from my favorite fighter game using the resources available in HSMA6e, and see where that got me. Do the characters match my expectations? If I run a few simulated fights using them am I able to capture the feel I'm looking for? I kind of already know from past experience that all my bullet points except for one would be easily covered using the content in HSMA6e...but a power meter sort of build up mechanic as found in some fighter games would be a gap in coverage...HSMA6e has write ups for a "power up" or "rage meter" effect that fills a END reserve that can then be used to fuel certain abilities which is pretty close to the idea and would work for some characters, but doesn't quite do it for me as a general mechanic...however I wrote up a custom "Threshold" framework many years ago (http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/ThresholdFramework.aspx) to model abilities tied to a build-up or meter type mechanic and I would use that to cover the "power meter of some kind" bullet point. So...in summary...I would strongly recommend you check out HSMA6e first and model some characters and just note any gaps or things you feel are missing before starting to tweak / rules patch / homebrew. I'm pretty sure you'll find that nearly everything you want has already been covered in HSMA6e.
  20. I'm glad to hear its been helpful. Let me know how it goes, and feel free to send me questions if you have any.
  21. Killer Shrike

    Creating/Materializing Weapons

    Object Creation has a long list of things it can't do, including not being able to make something that can work as a weapon.
  22. Killer Shrike

    Any D6 recommendations?

    Yeah, I played with a guy once who used "vegas" dice. He really liked them. They didn't do it for me aesthetically / tactilely, but they were definitely quality dice.
  23. Killer Shrike

    Any D6 recommendations?

    I had a player chip and dent an expensive dining table with their metal dice once upon a time, so no metal dice are allowed at my gaming table anymore. The HERO Dice are cool, but a bit on the large size. I have a couple of sets, and they're useful for players who struggle with counting pips of body. Personally, I have a bunch of nice Chessex speckled dice, 16mm with pips. They come in bricks of 12 for about $10; get a few different colors and you're set. Some people like 12mm (the small d6's), but I find them to be annoyingly small and they go all over the place when you roll them. The 16mm pip dice are easy to read, have a good heft, rounded corners, and last forever. I bought most of mine over 20 years ago when I was playing a lot of Warhammer 40k and have used them for all kinds of games over the years. You can get them on amazon or ebay (https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=chessex+speckled+16mm+d6&_sacat=0) for reasonable prices. If you just want a bunch of dice, Chessex sells a random assortment by the pound, but it is literally a "mixed bag" with no aesthetic considerations. I wouldn't recommend it personally as some of the dice are quite boring opaques, but my wife buys them sometimes for her classes (she teaches math) and you do get a bunch of dice that way. Amazon carries them, with free delivery for Prime, so it is pretty economical. There's a d6 only bag, and a random polyhedral bag.
  24. Killer Shrike

    Creating/Materializing Weapons

    Physical Manifestation does exactly what you describe, and it is a small limitation because the physical manifestation can be targeted after you've made it. That's how I would model this type of effect, and it is how I've done it in the past. Physical Manifestation is a lim custom made exactly for this sort of ability. However, it could just be the SFX for a HKA.
  25. If you get Hero Designer, a custom html export could be put together that accomplishes what you want, vs trying to use a pdf or spreadsheet.
×