Galactic Champions

[Twilight]

Since nobody else, too my knowledge, has asked this question I will. What would you like to see in Galactic Champions?

[Lord Liaden]

It's probably a little late for suggestions - Darren Watts already started writing the book, and it's scheduled for release "early 2004" - but what I'm hoping for is descriptions, and hopefully stats for at least some, of the "cosmic bigwigs" of the Champions Universe. The Ultimate Supermage layed out some of the mystic heavies and conceptual entities, and I expect most of those to carry forward into the new CU, but I'd like some with a more sci-fi flavor: the Watcher/ Time Trapper/ Galactus/ Darkseid/ Thanos/ Guardians of the Universe/ Elders of the Universe types.

[BobGreenwade]

Personally I'd like to see:

• Supers from a variety of species across the galaxy, including Mon'dabi, Donburil, Denebian, and others.
  
• 30th-century updates for some of the CU's undying "heavy hitters," such as Mechanon, Doctor Destroyer, Takofanes, Tyrannon, and so forth.
  
• Some information on species and societies of the Andromeda Galaxy and other galaxies of the Local Group.
  
• At least one or two really, really big space monsters.
  

That's what comes right to my mind, anyway.

[Steve Long]

I've moved this to the Champions board because GC is a Champions-line product, not an SH line book.

[megaplayboy]

At least one NPC hero writeup in excess of 1000 points. I know that the baseline standard is going to be 600, but it's a must to include some guidelines for higher powered heroes, as many game groups will pursue that option(and a long running GC game will get there quickly anyway). Also, suggestions in each "standard NPC hero" writeup for upgunning them to cosmic level.

 

A cosmic megamenace.

A galactic conqueror ala Darkseid or the like.

A revamped version of the Infinite One from Alien Enemies.

 

guidelines for how the heck supers are going to whomp space battleships;)

[Enforcer84]

What do I want???

 

Some nice examples of cosmic powers; various campaign styles: Marvel cosmic type campaigns are going to be different from DC "Legion-esque" campaigns.

 

What happened to the big bads from Champions. Particularly during the "Star Hero" Eras.

[Jhamin]

I want guidelines on superhero vs. Star Cruiser battles. In the comics, supers do it all the time. In Hero, it gets ugly to put even Dr. D against a Star Hero Dreadnought.

[Agent X]

A recurring problem for me in all Champions products is the relative ability of high point supers against large vehicles and weapons systems.

[drrushing]

Galactic "Old School" Champions

 

This might sound strange, but I would like to see some pumped up versions of 1st and 2nd Edition Champions characters. Provided the rights are available, advanced versions of some of the more Cosmic or Technology type heroes and villians, like Plasma Ranger or Death Commando. They may not even be the same "person", but their technology lived on and advanced.

 

One personal note about the new write-ups, I'd like to see well-rounded character creations. The final result of a 1000 pt. character when they've received their experience 1, 2 or 3 pts at a time is "Galactically" different than a new character created on the same point base. I disagree on a personal level with new character write-ups from the publisher all having MP's AND EC's or VPP's together. The rules discourage the player and GM from having EVERY character have one, the same should apply for the NPC's generated.

[megaplayboy]

Originally posted by Agent X

A recurring problem for me in all Champions products is the relative ability of high point supers against large vehicles and weapons systems.

 

Do you mean that whole "Grond can juggle tanks, but can barely dent their armor" paradox? That always annoyed the heck out of me...

 

And the anti-tank missiles that would wipe the floor with the campaign's toughest villain.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by megaplayboy

Do you mean that whole "Grond can juggle tanks, but can barely dent their armor" paradox? That always annoyed the heck out of me...

 

And the anti-tank missiles that would wipe the floor with the campaign's toughest villain.

Bingo!

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

A recurring problem for me in all Champions products is the relative ability of high point supers against large vehicles and weapons systems.

To me it is not just vehicles that are the problem. It is the whole DEF/BODY structure of almost everything in the HERO System. Roadway, for example, I think is around 5/11. That means if a PC wants to blow a hole underneath Blobbo to get rid of him into the sewers he needs to do 16 BODY. Considering that most PCs have 10-12d6 attacks, rolling 16 BODY is not an easy thing. So you are left with doing a pushed Haymaker against the road.

 

Or how many villains have you seen blow up a train bridge in order to force Superman to save the train? Well that bridge is going to require some 30-40 dice of damage to blow that hole. That is virtually impossible for anyone in the CU outside of Master Villains.

 

It sometimes just gets very hard to try to make the players feel heroic when the damage they are doing is not enough blow up a piece of pavement, or stop a large printing press from curshing thier DNPC, or barely enough to take down a lightpole.

 

I really think for many players it is because their characters are so ineffectual against the enviroment that they are in such a rush to always increase d6s of damage. They cannot blow up pavement, or stop a fleeing armored car, or do squat against a tank. So they think the need more dice of damage and soon the arms race is on.

 

My own quick fix is to assume that maximum damage is rolled against all non-living objects. You have a 11d6 attack and need to blow up pavement, you just did 22 BODY. You have a 45 STR and need to grab that lightpole to swat 10 VIPER agents, you just did 18 BODY. You have a 60 STR and need to shred that tank, you just did 24 BODY.

 

By allowing that it allows the players to feel heroic, and to my mind that is what the game is all about. It works for me, anyway.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

To me it is not just vehicles that are the problem. It is the whole DEF/BODY structure of almost everything in the HERO System. Roadway, for example, I think is around 5/11. That means if a PC wants to blow a hole underneath Blobbo to get rid of him into the sewers he needs to do 16 BODY. Considering that most PCs have 10-12d6 attacks, rolling 16 BODY is not an easy thing. So you are left with doing a pushed Haymaker against the road.

 

Or how many villains have you seen blow up a train bridge in order to force Superman to save the train? Well that bridge is going to require some 30-40 dice of damage to blow that hole. That is virtually impossible for anyone in the CU outside of Master Villains.

 

It sometimes just gets very hard to try to make the players feel heroic when the damage they are doing is not enough blow up a piece of pavement, or stop a large printing press from curshing thier DNPC, or barely enough to take down a lightpole.

 

I really think for many players it is because their characters are so ineffectual against the enviroment that they are in such a rush to always increase d6s of damage. They cannot blow up pavement, or stop a fleeing armored car, or do squat against a tank. So they think the need more dice of damage and soon the arms race is on.

 

My own quick fix is to assume that maximum damage is rolled against all non-living objects. You have a 11d6 attack and need to blow up pavement, you just did 22 BODY. You have a 45 STR and need to grab that lightpole to swat 10 VIPER agents, you just did 18 BODY. You have a 60 STR and need to shred that tank, you just did 24 BODY.

 

By allowing that it allows the players to feel heroic, and to my mind that is what the game is all about. It works for me, anyway.

That sounds like a good patch job. It's a shame that you have to do that though.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

That sounds like a good patch job. It's a shame that you have to do that though.

I agree, but I also understand that it is a game to some extent. It can be difficult balancing what should be an automatic action (ripping a vault door off to save Lois) and what should be a difficult task (opening the door to Dr. Destroyer's control room). It is not easy finding the happy medium between making the heroes feel powerful and not letting them overwhelm the game.

 

No game system I have ever played didn't require tweaking. A game without house rules is like a game session without munchies.

[Storn]

In our game, THE vehicle killing power is Armor Piercing.

 

Now we use the house rule suggested in the Adventurer's Club so many years ago. The Body rolled on the dice is the amount that comes off the rPD/PD or rED/ED respectively. Instead of halving the armor.

 

Many of the experienced characters have an Armor Piercing attack... that they rarely use...but when you want to blow a hole in a Posiedon class sub's "screw" ya can... as my PC had to do to slow the sub down a few adventures ago.

 

But the house rule of Max damage is interesting idea.

[RDU Neil]

The "max damage" is an interesting rule... but I think it may also stem from the lack of KAs in Monoliths' games. In many other threads, Monolith has made comments about KAs not being superheroic and that s/he highly discourages their use at all.

 

In our games, Storn... we've realized that every power has it's use. Like you said about Armor Piercing. Your character has it, but knows it can be lethal, and uses it in desperate measures or against inanimate objects.

 

To me, there is logic in a 10-12d6 blast not doing much vs. a tank. 10d6 normal damage is often considered a "safe" attack. Something you can use against foes that won't come close to killing them unless they are a totally unarmored normal.

 

A "safe" attack should NOT do much against a tank. I have no problem with that. The blast that destroys the tank better be different/more powerful in nature, than the blast you shoot at Foxbat. If the blast can take out a tank... it should turn Foxbat into red mist. Game effect for this is a KA. A 4d6K has a better chance of harming a tank than a 12d6 normal. (Not much of one, I admit... but better...)

 

The best reason to have a KA is exactly for this issue... to do body vs. inanimate objects.

 

I want that consistency in the game... not the inconsistent four color feel that Monolith describes above. If a character can casually rip off a vault door... I'm not changing the rules for Dr. Destroyer's vault "just because." A vault door is a vault door. I like comics, but I'm not interested in role playing out the maddening inconsistencies of comics. This being one of them.

 

 

[Monolith]

Originally posted by RDU Neil

The "max damage" is an interesting rule... but I think it may also stem from the lack of KAs in Monoliths' games. In many other threads, Monolith has made comments about KAs not being superheroic and that s/he highly discourages their use at all.

Even Killing Attacks do not make that much difference. A character has a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA, the difference between the two on average is 2 more BODY for the KA. But if you ue the Max Damage house rule, they both do 24.

 

To me, there is logic in a 10-12d6 blast not doing much vs. a tank. 10d6 normal damage is often considered a "safe" attack. Something you can use against foes that won't come close to killing them unless they are a totally unarmored normal.

I do not make the distinction of 10-12d6 being "safe" damage. Part of what I really liked about the new Champions Universe is that the heroes do not need to be godly to be tough. Defenses were lowered instead of raising dice of damage. So you can look at an established superhero like Star*Guardian and see that he is only doing an 8d6 AP attack. He is not doing 20d6 or some other mega-number to prove he is a tough established hero.

 

I have always found that gamers tend to think the comic book heroes are somehow tougher than their characters. I tend to feel that they are all pretty much in the same range. Yes, Defender might not be as tough as Ironman, but to me the difference between the two characters comes from Ironman having more weapon options, not because he is doing 20d6 and Defender only does 12d6. In my game Ironman would probably only have 13-14d6; well within the range of Defender.

 

I do not like the idea that my starting level heroes are somehow weaker than any other hero. I want them to feel that if they shoot a 12d6 attack they are doing something extraordinary, not something safe. Daredevil does not feel inferior to Spider-man, and I do not want my player clones to feel inferior either.

 

A "safe" attack should NOT do much against a tank. I have no problem with that. The blast that destroys the tank better be different/more powerful in nature, than the blast you shoot at Foxbat. If the blast can take out a tank... it should turn Foxbat into red mist. Game effect for this is a KA. A 4d6K has a better chance of harming a tank than a 12d6 normal. (Not much of one, I admit... but better...)

 

The best reason to have a KA is exactly for this issue... to do body vs. inanimate objects.

I just disagree here. The difference is just 2 BODY between the two. The reason people use KAs is for the STUN Lotto. Because all inanimate defenses are resistant by nature, so doing an EB or KA has no real difference. The fact of the matter is that the Hulk will toast a tank in 1-2 panels, but Grond would require some 10 attacks to do the same effect. That tells me that the rules are not emulating comics, which is what Champions is supposed to do.

 

I want that consistency in the game... not the inconsistent four color feel that Monolith describes above. If a character can casually rip off a vault door... I'm not changing the rules for Dr. Destroyer's vault "just because." A vault door is a vault door. I like comics, but I'm not interested in role playing out the maddening inconsistencies of comics. This being one of them.

You missed my point a little. I would expect Dr. Destroyer to have a vault door which is better than the one at the local bank. But I also expect my 65 STR Colossus clone to be able to rip off that bank vault door as easily as Colossus does in the comics. If Colossus can do it on one panel in the comic, I do not expect my clone to need 3-4 phases/panels to achieve the same goal. YMMV.

[Agent X]

Monolith, there's nothing wrong with placing Iron Man's damage at the levels you choose. But, it is inconsistent with the benchmarks set in Hero for the damage blast furnaces, TOW missiles, and the like do. That's easy to ignore for some but not for me. To each his own, to own his each.

 

Iron Man's base attack in my game would be about 18DC with a staggered series of dice with increased endurance above that..

The Thing would have a strength of 88.

Colossus from the 70s would have a strength of 85.

Thor would have a strength of 110 and the belt would raise it to 115. Thor's Unfettered Might was Shift Z in the Marvel Game which would place it around 34 Dice before advantages.

Wonder Man from the 70s would have a strength of 105. I've always got the impression that he thought he was as strong as Thor but that Thor knew he wasn't.

Superman's strength right after Crisis would be about 125 and would probably be at least 150 (only if you ignore moon moving stories that would raise it even higher)

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Agent X

Monolith, there's nothing wrong with placing Iron Man's damage at the levels you choose. But, it is inconsistent with the benchmarks set in Hero for the damage blast furnaces, TOW missiles, and the like do. That's easy to ignore for some but not for me. To each his own, to own his each.

You consider those benchmarks to be consistent? A LAW cannot even take out a tank. If you use the write-up in TUV, a LAW would not even scratch an Abrams. It wouldn't even scratch an Bradley fighting vehicle. And it would take 25 TOW missles to bring down an Abrams. It is because of all the benchmark inconsistencies that we have the problem in the first place.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

You consider those benchmarks to be consistent? A LAW cannot even take out a tank. If you use the write-up in TUV, a LAW would not even scratch an Abrams. It wouldn't even scratch an Bradley fighting vehicle. And it would take 25 TOW missles to bring down an Abrams. It is because of all the benchmark inconsistencies that we have the problem in the first place.

sigh. You're right. My benchmarks weren't all the benchmarks. I was operating off of a few items in the back of the 4th Ed. book and the assumption of damage doubling like in the Mayfair DC RPG.

[Monolith]

From my own games:

Ironman, 14d6.

Thor, 90 STR, +10d6 mjolnir.

Thing, 80 STR.

Colossus, 70-75 STR.

Wondeman, 85 STR.

Superman, Pre-crisis, 150 STR.

Sueprman, Post-crisis, 100 STR.

 

I think most comics have a three-tier structure. People like Thor and Superman are the heavy hitters of their universes. Then you have the mid-level people like Thing and Wonder Woman. Almost everyone else falls into the third tier in the 8-13d6 range, IMO.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Monolith

From my own games:

Ironman, 14d6.

Thor, 90 STR, +10d6 mjolnir.

Thing, 80 STR.

Colossus, 70-75 STR.

Wondeman, 85 STR.

Superman, Pre-crisis, 150 STR.

Sueprman, Post-crisis, 100 STR.

 

I think most comics have a three-tier structure. People like Thor and Superman are the heavy hitters of their universes. Then you have the mid-level people like Thing and Wonder Woman. Almost everyone else falls into the third tier in the 8-13d6 range, IMO.

I've seen lots of people translate published characters with your sensibility and a few with mine. We must not be way off the mark.

[Lord Liaden]

In my experience the mechanism that allowed for those classic comic book tank-smashing scenes was the pre-5E Haymaker maneuver. For those unfamiliar with it, a Haymaker used to do x1.5 normal Stun and Body damage before Pushing, rather than the current +4 Damage Classes. So for example, Grond with STR 90 would Haymaker for 27 DC, enough to reduce an Abrams tank to scrap in two or three blows. I suspect that the Defenses of some of the listed objects in Hero products may have had that scale of potential damage in mind.

 

Since Haymakers can now be used for ranged offensive Powers as well, it might be worth considering applying the old style maneuver in some circumstances, perhaps as an optional rule for high-powered campaigns like Galactic Champions where heroes could expect to be pitted against very powerful technology.

[Kristopher]

A) In real life, a LAW will rarely damage a modern Main Battle Tank, such as the Abrams.

 

One of the major problems I have with the typical comic book is that the capabilities of the characters are more often determined by what the writers want from moment to moment, than by a consistent standard. In one issue, the hero can bounce a LAW off his chest and smash APCs. In the next issue, a few rifle rounds or a really small bomb completely take him out.

 

C) I think the idea that supers should be able to handle tanks (and major bank vaults) with ease grossly undervalues the toughness and power of armored vehicles.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Monolith

I do not make the distinction of 10-12d6 being "safe" damage. Part of what I really liked about the new Champions Universe is that the heroes do not need to be godly to be tough. Defenses were lowered instead of raising dice of damage. So you can look at an established superhero like Star*Guardian and see that he is only doing an 8d6 AP attack. He is not doing 20d6 or some other mega-number to prove he is a tough established hero.

 

I have always found that gamers tend to think the comic book heroes are somehow tougher than their characters. I tend to feel that they are all pretty much in the same range. Yes, Defender might not be as tough as Ironman, but to me the difference between the two characters comes from Ironman having more weapon options, not because he is doing 20d6 and Defender only does 12d6. In my game Ironman would probably only have 13-14d6; well within the range of Defender.

 

I do not like the idea that my starting level heroes are somehow weaker than any other hero.

 

Here we have to disagree. A starting character IS weaker than someone with 300 EXP. The fact that players have taken a character through years of gaming should be rewarded by their characters earning the power and reputation of being "the big guns" and new characters, while perfectly competent, are just not in their level. To me, that is the whole point of long running games. The PCs earn their place in the world... it's not just handed to them at the starting levels.

 

I think of starting characters as high school stars who just went to college. They were great on the HS field, but it's a whole new ballgame in the college ranks... not to mention the Pros! (There are few, if any, LeBron James of the superhero set.)

 

 

 

I want them to feel that if they shoot a 12d6 attack they are doing something extraordinary, not something safe. Daredevil does not feel inferior to Spider-man, and I do not want my player clones to feel inferior either.

 

Again, have to disagree... Daredevil not only IS inferior to Spider-Man, he knows it. Just like Spider-Man is inferior to Iron Man... who is inferior to Thor. I'm not saying that low level and high level characters can't co-exist, but '70s era Black Panther was a lot less points, a lot less DCs, a lot less power over all, than Iron Man or Thor. In combat terms, he was competent, but highly inferior to those two.

 

12d6 is extraordinary, if they compare it to 99% of the rest of the world. If they compare it to the 1% of supers better than they are, then yeah, they will feel bad.

 

A super can destroy a car in the time it takes me to start walking to the tool shed to get my sledge hammer. That is heinously powerful, even it does take 12 seconds (four attacks) that is still INSANE compared to anything in the real world. And that old "one panel is one action" has not been a comic book standard for 20 years. If you are still playing in the 60s 70s comic style... I really don't think Hero is, or ever was, the system for that. It much better fits a more down to earth, Iron Age style of game no matter what it's original intent.

 

I just disagree here. The difference is just 2 BODY between the two. The reason people use KAs is for the STUN Lotto. Because all inanimate defenses are resistant by nature, so doing an EB or KA has no real difference.

 

Here your argument holds weight except, in other threads, you berate people for "changing the rules" by tossing out the stun lotto on KAs, but in this thread you say every game needs to have it's house rules. Be consistent. If you use a flat stun modifier (another argument entirely I know) you will find people taking KAs for what they were built to do... BODY damage.

 

I do agree that there is a problem that inanimate objects all have fully resistant defenses. This screws things up quite a bit. Think about a car door. 3 Def I think. I personally would build it as 5 Def/2r... meaning that a fist or baseball bat has a tough time with it, but a bullet goes right through it. This, of course, complicates the game quite a bit.

 

Vehicle damage and body has always been the biggest problem with the Hero System.

 

Vehicle damage also doesn't take into consideration "area effect." To hit a car with a narrow beam, yeah, it might take a couple blasts to total it... but a wide beam should do more damage. It should 12 body to the door... and 12 body to the tire... and 12 body to the winshield... and 12 body to the engine... etc. AE as a game mechanic only effects to hit... but in reality, again larger than mansized objects, AE should basically do more damage, as well.

 

My idea here, which can unbalance a game, I realize, is that for each hex hit, the object takes that amount of damage. So a normal beam of 12d6 does average 12 body, but a spread or AE beam on a 2 hex car, would do 12 and 12, likely totalling the car. Buildings work this way as well. It becomes unbalanced if you apply this to characters who grow or shrink. A three hex tall character can now be hit for multiple damage rolls with a spread or AE attack, because they have more surface area to damage. Shrinking characters might treat a normal beam as AE because they are so small. That can screw up combat effectiveness quite a bit.

 

That tells me that the rules are not emulating comics, which is what Champions is supposed to do.

 

Hero System provides a framework, one of many systems out there, to simulate superheroics. I find it surprising that so many try to do 4 color with Hero, because I feel it doesn't do that very well. It's too crunchy. M&M or some other is much more 4 color. Hero does lower level, guns and martial arts, and low level supers VERY well... but it doesn't really work well for old style, massive property damage on a Byrne/Perez scale superheroics. It's damage levels or more normal. Cars can be wrecked, but not shredded into confetti very easily. Tanks can be stopped, but not scrapped very easily.

 

If you want your characters to do this, you can make up a house rule... or you can just allow the points and damage classes that reflect that level of damage to characters who have earned that with years of EXP. I go with the latter.