Jump to content

massey

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    2,903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

massey last won the day on July 25 2017

massey had the most liked content!

About massey

  • Rank
    Powerful Hero

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think that's just a Distinctive Features.
  2. Summon Giant Eagles is also one of those campaign breakers. Gandalf's player tried to use it, and the GM flipped the table over and started ranting about how much time he'd spent prepping the game. "I even wrote a damn language for the elves!" he said. Finally he was like "you can't do that!" "I can too! I paid the points for it!" "No you can't! Because.... because... because the Nazgul have these like, big ass flying dinosaur things!" Then the GM reminded Gandalf that he hadn't chipped in for pizza for the last couple months, and Gandalf decided they'd just walk to Mordor.
  3. Yeah, this is the same justification I have for why superheroes don't just end World War II. The idea of people with powers is so new, that nobody quite gets what they're really capable of. Also, Superman can't see his own character sheet. It's always gotta be a little spooky the first time you get hit with a bigger bomb.
  4. We've had a guy play a Martian Manhunter ripoff in a game before without it being a problem. Of course, there were also Kryptonians in that game, so it was pretty high powered. When you're looking at balancing a game, you've got several things to consider. 1) Is it thematically appropriate? No matter the power level, it's probably not cool to bring in a knock off from your favorite anime, Super Fluffy Bunny Power Team Go! when everyone else is making characters for Call of Cthulhu. 2) Is it outside of accepted campaign norms? There's nothing particularly wrong with having a 9 OCV. But if the group average OCV/DCV is a 4, then it could easily cause problems. 3) Do any of the powers provide shortcuts that the GM did not anticipate? "Detect Bad Guy" could be fine in some games, but unbalancing in others. There's nothing wrong with the Martian Manhunter, and nothing wrong with playing him. There are plenty of characters with a broad set of different powers. But it's worth pointing out that it may not work for some GMs, some campaigns, and some storylines. The Lord of the Rings doesn't work as an adventure if you've got a long range teleport. A Multipower potentially lets you have several of these abilities, the better to find the thing the GM didn't anticipate.
  5. There is a third type of Multipower that I've seen, and that's the Martian Manhunter "grab bag of awesome abilities" method. He's got Invisibility, Desolidification, a 20/20 Force Field, Teleportation, Retrocognition, and as many other "ruin the GM's scenario" type powers as he can cram in. The problem here isn't with the Multipower though. It's with the specific powers and how they interact with the game. Something like Desolid or Invisibility can be extremely powerful, or sometimes not that important at all depending on how the campaign is set up. Just like Telepathy can be either totally useless or a complete campaign wrecker, depending on what the GM lets you pull from Lowly Agent's mind. A whodunit mystery will probably be pretty boring unless the GM remembered the Telepathy and accounted for it. Cramming lots of those powers into one character increases the chances that the GM isn't prepared for one of them. But again, that's a problem with how they interact with the campaign, not a problem with the construct itself.
  6. I haven't found Multipowers to be too cost effective. Generally I tend to use them for one of two things. 1) A different "flavor" of power that isn't any more or less effective (like different types of arrows), and 2) uncommon powers that are used in special circumstances. One of the things almost every one of my characters has is a Movement Multipower. My trained martial artist characters end up with something like this: 11 point Multipower 1u -- +5" of Running 1u -- 11" of Swinging (defined as conveniently placed light poles, signs, etc, basically super-parkour) 1u -- +5" Swimming 1u -- +7" Superleap I'm a bit OCD and so I like my "primary" movement characteristics to be all the same. I'll have 11" of Running, Swinging, and Superleap. They're all odd numbers so they round up for the half-move. Now it's pretty point efficient, but obviously not quite as efficient as just buying one form of movement and using only that. For most cases, pure Running or pure Superleap will be more efficient. And Flight or Teleport will be more effective if you pay a slight cost premium. But I think that shows that the Multipower is fairly well balanced. More useful that the most efficient build, but not as powerful as the more expensive option. You're only going to be using one movement mode each phase, so why should you pay full price for each one? While this is a low cost example, it's not that different from the standard 60 Active Point Multipower with 4 different attacks in it. All of the attacks are roughly "equally good", and you're paying a premium for versatility. Then you've got the Utility Belt model. These are situational powers that don't really define your character, and you won't be using them often, but they are nice to have. Darkness with continuing charges for a "smoke bomb". Flash pellets. Batarangs. Entangles. These abilities are usually relatively low in Active Points and are situational. They might be extremely useful in one specific scenario, but your character isn't built around maximizing their effect.
  7. Speed is the most powerful characteristic in the game. That's why it's also the most expensive. Anything that allows you to function as if your Speed were higher is (potentially) incredibly powerful. The Talents that allow for additional attacks have a set cost of 10 points apiece. This becomes more and more powerful the higher your Speed, as it lets you "double up" your attacks on more phases. Multiple Power Attack has been implied in Hero since at least 4th edition (no need to revisit The Great Linked Debate). But it was always an inefficient choice -- two 10D6 Energy Blasts are inferior to one 20D6 Energy Blast. That was the case until 5th edition, where you could buy an additional focus for +5 points. 10D6 Energy Blast OAF (25 points) + second focus (5 points) gives you two 10D6 attacks for the cost of one 12D6 attack (assuming it would also be an OAF). That's a significant increase in power. Perhaps you haven't seen characters that can really take advantage of these maneuvers. It was all we saw.
  8. Skill level costs deserve more analysis than I can give them right now. It also directly ties into the costs of characteristics, which I've avoided up to this point. I'll agree that 8 point levels were too expensive. I disagree that they got better in 6th. And again there's a big problem that 2 point levels now apply to every kind of maneuver you can do with a weapon. Now that's entirely correct, and is the whole reason for the heroic level discussion. Heroic games have too many unknowns. Definitely intuiting how they priced it. One of the first things I did when I was a happy little powergamer was slap Increased End on a power and then buy up an End Reserve to pay for it. And lo and behold, it tracks very closely with the cost of Charges. You don't really gain much at all. That's not accidental. And I'm saying the authors got it right when they got to 4th edition. I also consider "build it in different ways, each with a similar cost" to be a mark of great game design. And that's why I've spent half the damn thread talking about the cost relationship between End Reserve and Charges. I don't care about earlier editions. For me, this thread is all about 6th ed vs 4th ed.
  9. You'll want to do your math again. The character doesn't have a 20 Rec. The character would have +20 Rec. Your example had a character with a 12 Rec, who was dropped to -19 Stun. On post-12, you get a recovery and go up to -7. Then at the end of your next segment (let's say segment 3) you get another recovery and you wake up at the end with 5 Stun. My character would also have a 12 Rec, and he's also dropped to -19 Stun. But on post-12, he's got an additional 20 Recovery. He gets 32 back, and at the beginning of Segment 3 he's awake at 13 Stun. Then he has a full Segment 3 to work with, which may involve taking a recovery, bringing him up to 25 total. The same number of recoveries are being taken, and the character gets 20 more. So if one person is at 5 Stun, the other would be at 25.
  10. Good enough for me. Shows which way his thoughts were going. And I think it's very different from the reasoning in 4th and before. Yeah, those problems exist in any game. But that's something to be addressed at the individual GM level, not at the publication level. You don't change point costs for the genres that only use half the book.
  11. Special effect? "Round 2, Fight!" Mine is much better, because I wake up a full phase earlier. You aren't getting up on your first phase, you're getting up on your second. I can take another recovery if I want (so I'm getting to my feet at the same time as you) and then I've got 25 Stun and End. That's probably plenty of End to get me to the next post-12. Let's agree that 6th edition didn't really improve things. Overall I think the changes were poor, but I agree that things weren't perfect before. Sure. But which character do you think is going to be the most effective overall? The point is you shouldn't try to balance costs because of Fantasy Hero (or other heroic games that only use a part of the system).
  12. Then let's set the rest of that discussion aside, since ultimately we agree on this point. I was attempting to show how it was costed correctly before, and it's not now. And I think it's indicative of a larger pattern. Yeah. And one choice is clearly a lot more effective than the other. That's part of what I've been arguing -- heroic point balance isn't possible because too much of it takes place in a vacuum. You're basically trying to balance an incomplete system where the game designer doesn't know what will be added later. Thus, they shouldn't change the point costs of the complete system (i.e., at superheroic levels) to benefit some versions of the partial system.
  13. My favorite character was in a concept game where we had unlimited points. We told the GM what we wanted and he built the characters for us. It was in a mixed Marvel/DC world where we were playing descendants of the original heroes. Not an End Reserve in sight. That's why I said I wasn't here trying to save a beloved character. Hugh Neilson (who has posted quite a bit above) was, I believe, part of the crew who helped make the changes that lead to 6th edition. He posted his own commentary a page or so back. I think we've got evidence in this very thread of "what they were thinking". I said earlier that Steve Long didn't follow the original design philosophy that was present in 4th edition and earlier. I stand by that 100%. Now he doesn't have to, he bought the game. He can do with it what he wants. But as a result, what we've really got are two different systems layered on top of one another. In that sense, it's "arbitrary". I'll give you an important example. In 4th edition and earlier, the question was often proposed "How do you make a dragon who can do a claw/claw/bite?" The answer was "buy it a higher Speed". I don't know if you can find one of the 4th ed FAQs around anymore, but that was the answer that was always given. In 5th edition and later, we got the Rapid Attack maneuver. We got Multiple Power Attack. We got the ability to use multiple martial art maneuvers as part of the same action. This was a fundamental change to the nature of the system. Some players really liked these changes, and some players didn't, but it was a clear difference from the "1 phase = 1 action" mentality that preceded it. The 5th edition multiple martial art maneuver rules were so broken that we just had to say "no, that's ridiculous". Too many legsweep/grab/nerve strike/joint break combos. The Hero System took a sharp turn towards increasing offensive firepower.
  14. Sigh. I think you're assuming bad faith on my part, and that's not warranted. As I said earlier, 6th edition went over like a lead balloon here. We're still playing a mixture of 4th and 5th, so whatever cost changes were made here haven't affected any of my characters at all (favorite characters or not). And I haven't built a character who used an End Reserve in about 20 years. The entire purpose of posting the Increased End + End Reserve breakdown was to show why End Reserve was priced the way it was in 5th edition and earlier. It was to illustrate the cost relationship between End Reserve and Charges. I was attempting to walk the reader through the process, showing why that power was priced as it was. I took a lot of time to show the relationship, how one was approximately the same as the other. That it was costed in such a way that even if you are trying to abuse it, it doesn't really gain you anything. I thought I had illustrated it sufficiently for everyone to understand. You want to know how I know they didn't do the math? Because there's the big warning on page 206, that you posted above, telling GMs that they should watch out for it because it can result in "unbalanced, overly powerful characters". But it was an inefficient use of points, even in 5th edition. It's a definite waste in 6th. They're warning people against something that sucks.
×
×
  • Create New...