Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Surrealone

  • Rank
    Millennial Master

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Straight out of RAW: "A character with this Talent has a sixth sense about danger." (Source: 6e1 p111) You need to GM that as you see fit, with the understanding that it relies on senses the character has unless purchased with the +10 CP option for "perceive any type of danger, in or out of combat, and regardless of whether he could perceive it with his standard senses" -- at which point, it effective DOES operate as a 6th sense. Most GM's I've seen and/or played under tend to give a basic DS roll (using normal senses) whenever an attack is coming in for which a per roll would not normally be permitted. An example might be the first shot fired by a sniper at the character. (Normally someone would not get a PER roll against this … and would be surprised, but someone with DS would likely be given a roll and, if successful, would spot the glare off the sniper's scope or hear the bullet's movement through the air --- i.e. GM explanation as to how it was perceived would be based on the character's senses.)
  2. This has been my experience, as well. Most players and GMs agree that it's just too cumbersome.
  3. Neil, I am late to the party and have not read all posts in this thread, as I'm pressed for time, right now (posting during lunch break). I don't see this (i.e. points for equipment vs free equipment) as an either/or problem. Why not? Simple: Resource points (specifically Equipment points) I'm currently playing in a Dark Champions (heroic-level) game where all equipment is GM-crafted/created. It is modern genre (so it has cell phones, and today's guns, for example) ... and a basic flip phone costs nada, since pretty much everyone has at least that. A smartphone, however, does so much more and while 68% of the US population has one, they're still not as ubiquitous as, say, tap water (free water when you go to a restaurant) … so they DO cost something. A really swanky smartphone (think latest Samsung Galaxy or iPhone) is built as a 20 Active Pt item (costing 4 real points)… by the GM. To put this into perspective (i.e. for context), a GM-built Glock 43 with FMJ ammunition in this game also happens to be a 20 Active Pt item (costing 5 real points) -- nevermind that, dollar-for-dollar, the phone costs twice as much as the pistol with its ammo (in the real world). This is where resource points come in. Everyone starts with a pre-set allocation of resource points -- some for equipment, some for followers/contacts, and some for vehicles/bases. Player characters can have on them at any one time (i.e. for a given scenario) equipment whose real costs equal their equipment point total … and they begin play with a maximum of 2x their equipment point total in their arsenal. As they collect things from adventures, those things are added to their arsenal without additional cost, but the equipment point total, itself, always serves as a cap on how much equipment the character than have with him/her for a scenario. Last, additional equipment pts can be purchased at a rate of 1 CP per 5 equipment points. IMPORTANT: It is the real cost of the equipment that is tallied against a character's equipment points, not the active cost. Thus, in a campaign where resource points are used and the starting equipment point total is 50: The character could have up to 50 real points worth of equipment on his/her person for a scenario -- at no cost. The character could start with up to 100 real points worth of equipment in his/her arsenal -- and change out equipment when able to visit that arsenal to do so. If the character wanted to be able to have 55 real points worth of equipment on his/her person for each scenario, s/he would buy a 'Resource Points' perk costing 1 CP. (In Hero Designer terminology, one would buy a 'Resource Points' perk whose type is 'Equipment Points', set the Starting Points value to 50, and then buy 5 'levels' of that perk ... which would end up costing the character 1 CP). There are several big benefits to this approach: The GM controls all equipment (and yes, builds it) -- a very good thing from a balance preservation standpoint A reasonable amount of equipment is available to all characters (defined by them but written up by the GM -- yes this requires working together) … thanks to the campaign starting value for equipment points Characters who want to carry around a pile of useful equipment (thereby having a pile of benefits that those who don't carry such around … lack) actually have to pay something for the value they get from having more at their fingertips in a scenario The problem of characters trying to lug around the kitchen sink is completely avoided I had never used resource points in a game before … probably because most GM's have been too lazy to build out equipment. I have to say, I really, really like the equipment point approach and think every heroic game should use resource points. That said, this only works if a GM isn't slack/lazy when it comes to building things. i.e. I believe this would fail miserably with a handwavey GM … or a slack GM who lets players build equipment -- as both leave too much open to interpretation and/or misunderstanding. But it works amazingly well with a GM who is interested in very granular/detailed simulation/creation of objects … and is willing to put in the legwork to get it.
  4. I, too, said FRED … mostly because changes from 4e were made in FRED … that then had to be undone (or redone) in 6e -- signaling that what was done to those items in FRED was FUBAR, to begin with. In case a working example is needed, I'll give you a concise one: Regeneration. Sadly, 6e was next on my list -- primarily because the 2-volume set is cumbersome and I really, really liked having a complete game in ~200ish pages back in the 4e days.
  5. I had the same question. So did another to whom I mentioned the new Jan build. What follows is not a complaint. Rather, it is an enhancement request pertaining to the HD release process: * Inclusion (within the archive file) of versioned Release Notes that describe the changes/fixes entailed by each HD release would be both useful and appreciated by its consumers. Use cases for the above enhancement request can be found in this very thread.
  6. I would personally find additional dice rolling for maneuvers that do not normally require it to be more time consuming, more of a hassle, and, thus more annoying. Unicuique suum, I suppose.
  7. I'm thoroughly enjoying the posts by unclevlad, Lucius, and others who seem to insist that the terminology/distinction for 'scrapper' is unique to me. It isn't. Here's a little bit of supporting evidence (colourized emphases added by me): "Scrapper - a solid all around hand to hand fighter, he has average attack and DEF but is not a true brick. Luke Cage is the classic example." Source: These very forums, in the following thread: And then there's this, too: "... such a character is a hybrid of archetypes. He has Brick-like defenses, but attack abilities like a martial artist or perhaps a weapons master." Source: These very forums, in the following thread: My point is (and has been throughout this thread) that solid/high defenses tend to be the realm of scrappers (and bricks, since I just brought it up via a thread post), while avoidance of getting hit tends to be the realm of martial artists (and speedsters, since it was brought up by another in the thread). I believe the cited posts shows that others share that perspective … and that the terminology/distinction is NOT unique to me. But keep hammering away if you like rather than embracing a common enough concept within super hero gaming. It's probably worth a looksee at the STR and the defenses of some of the builds put forth in the second thread, as well … to see how they tend to fall. Have fun!
  8. Probably because it is a martial maneuver … one that originated in The Ultimate Martial Artist, IIRC.
  9. I'm personally looking forward to APG3 coming out.
  10. I wasn't petulant, at all -- and I gave you the very instructions (in my response, above -- look again) required to come up with the same definition I used … just to see if you'd use them. But you didn't -- because I suspected you were actively looking for a basis on which to disagree rather than actually trying to understand my statement. Thank you for the confirmation, thereof!
  11. Duke, I suspect you were kinda forced into such a bizarre construct since you play 2e … which lacks … Summon!
  12. Given that what I suggested as the bare minimum was "Hero Designer plus the HERO System 6th Edition Bundle: Character Creation/Combat and Adventuring PDF", my instinctive response to your query is: I believe so. Of course, I can't be certain...
  13. I'd use Summon to do this … specifically with a limitation that requires a nearby adult (akin to a MacGyver-like gadgeteer who can use any OAF for his/her gadgetry) … in addition to the 'arrives under own power' limitation … and a limited form (meaning -1 instead of -2) of 'no conscious control' impacting only the effects of the Summon such that the GM, not the kid, would control the super hero. The Summon SFX would, of course, be that the nearby adult becomes a super hero (perhaps even doing the Superman thing to run and rip off the Clark Kent costume). For Advantages, I think Amicable would probably make sense, as well as IPE. This approach would entail the super hero always being the same in terms of powers and the like … at least as I'd build it. You could certainly go for a class of beings, but I think that gets unnecessarily hard in terms of GM work required to execute it. I also tend to think it'd be more interesting for the same super to always show up when the kid's around, just because it makes for an interesting plot hook once someone picks up on it. (And, of course, the kid probably has his/her favourite hero and that's who s/he's likely steadily wishing to be present, cheering on, etc.)
  14. I meant that in terms of both financial cost AND character creation rules/CP costs for character creation. Key to this is that if you turn on certain Hero Designer options, you basically have martial maneuvers, advantages, and limitations from most of the 6e material (including CC, FHC, etc. with the APG's obviously excepted) … and you can also kick it into 5e mode and set options within it that have the vast bulk of the 5e character creation rules/CP costs (including things from Star Hero, Fantasy Hero, The Ultimate Speedster/Brick/Martial Artist, etc.) I vehemently disagree with this. The reason I disagree is that the Striking Appearance talent as implemented in 5e and later (as a replacement for COM) results in an infinitely more appropriate and useful ability on the character sheet when it comes to appearance-based playability. It is built as: +5 PRE (5 Active Points), Only For Interaction Skill Roll And Presence Attack Bonuses Where Appearance Might Be A Factor (-1) (total cost: 3 (rounded up to allow for difference between “all characters” and “limited group of characters”). This means that in 5e and later you can still effectively do the equivalent of Drain to COM … despite COM having been replaced by Striking Appearance … by simply performing a Drain to PRE with the SFX of making the target uglier to onlookers. I see no downside to the Striking Appearance, at all, especially since Striking Appearance tends to see much more acknowledgement/use from most GMs than COM ever did, gameplay-wise. Probably not; Duke Bushido is pretty reasonable … unlike some of the people I believer were engaged in said long and bitter arguments!
  15. I believe you're perfectly capable of looking up words using multiple online dictionaries that are readily at your fingertips, so I'm not going to cater to your demand to have me do your homework for you. Look it up, yourself, if you're that interested in confirming; it's as easy as typing 'dilemma definition' into Google. Semantics are relevant, at least to those who choose their words carefully in order to be as precise as they're able when conveying what they mean. The issue I have with the avoidance of the problem of how to handle Luck on villains … by replacing Luck with something else … is that the problem remains unsolved. i.e. Replacing Luck with something else didn't magically make the problem of the players' faith in GM's fairness (for which Luck on a villain was merely a catalyst) go away; the problem remains. Dealing with the problem, IMHO, requires a demonstrably fair system for handling Luck (on any/all characters) … or replacing the problematic players with ones who don't get butt-hurt when the GM makes something happen that they don't like. I'm a strong proponent of the former, by the way, which is why I proposed what I did, above. But if that still doesn't work, then I believe the latter is in order.
  • Create New...