Need help in adjudicating....

[assault]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

as another example, I absolutely positively _detest_ combat-oriented magic.  It's just so...  Tawdry to me: "I can bend the fabric of reality to my will; I know the secrets of reshaping the universe to my liking.  It is within my grasp to mould a world where all are fed, and none have want of anything. Today, though, I just want to set this one guy on fire."

 

I'm not too bothered by this.

Lighting a candle is the kind of easy magic students might learn early in their training. Magnifying the effect of basic spells seems like a natural extension.

 

Protective magic would be similar. If you are messing about with dangerous energies/entities, being able to protect yourself seems like a good idea.

 

Combat magic seems like the kind of easy magic even the dubiously talented and incompletely trained can do. It's magic for hacks, at least if that's all they can do.

Not to mention "I was walking down the street and this guy tried to grief me, so I whipped up a bit of fire and he backed off. Lucky, because I'm pretty useless with my sword."

[Duke Bushido]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:31 AM, Grailknight said:

 

I wouldn't have many problems with Deadly Blow except for the fact that it adds to the Attack's base damage before other modifiers and doubling.

 

 

As I said, if it worked this way, I'd be cool with it, but it doesn't. It instead says that goes from base to base +X DC's, gets all the Advantages for free and can be doubled from the new b

 

 

Okay;  let me go a little deeper.

 

I dont play 6e for the same,reason I don't play 5e:

 

I very much appreciate that Steve Long kept the game alive and spearheaded the revitalization of HERO games.  Don't ever believe that I do not think that, emphatically.

 

I also disagree with almost every word rules-wise he has ever written going all the way back to 4e's Dark Champions.

 

There.  That's out in the open now.

 

Again: I dont bag on him because out of the at-one-time thousands of Champions fans who could have potentially scraped some investors together and done something with the game, he is the one who actually did it,  and I am grateful to him for it.  Plus, I have it on reasonable authority that he is a great guy and a terrific human being, and there aren't enough of those.

 

So let no one even even try to twist to twist my disagreement with his take on the rules into anythng remotely anti-Steve.

 

We all good?

 

What I do for this "Deadly Blow" knockoff is exactly what I said I do:

 

Plus damage, with matching advantages "for free."  That plus damage us usually 1d killing.

 

That's it.  It doesn't double; it doesnt triple.  It _does_ cost double END to use.  It doesnt apply to every type of weapon, or SFX, either.  Thundar's Sun Sword in Hugh's example, for instance, doesn't get it.  That is a unique weapon ("magic," perhaps?) With a unique build and its own damage structure.

 

The deadly blow pastiche I put together represents someone so competent with this one particular type of mundane weapon that he has found a way to add up to 3 more damage classes without resorting to upgraded weapons, or arrows, or magical blessings, or whatever, which tend to add one or more damage classes anyway.

 

Nothing here strikes as terribly out of line.  As for giving away a couple of AP of advantages every now and again, well, there are those times (reduced Penetration, for example) when it takes a couple of limitations without rebate as well.  And if  overall it comes out that some people consistently get two or three points "free" or get two or three less "free points" than someone else, well ultimately, 40 years of playtesting have- at least for us- conclusively proven that about a half-million words of new hyper-specific rules to ensure all maths are perfect so as to not endanger the game are completely unnecessary.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I absolutely positively _detest_ combat-oriented magic.  It's just so...  Tawdry to me: "I can bend the fabric of reality to my will; I know the secrets of reshaping the universe to my liking. 

 

Honestly, I tend to agree; magic feels more magical when its doing amazing and wild stuff, not "I zap them".  With the point values usually used in Fantasy Hero, magical attacks will usually tend to either be kind of meh or fairly small damage but always hits and is difficult to defend against, etc.  So the spell caster who focuses on utility and support will find themselves being more effective and interesting than the one that is essentially a bargain basement energy projector.

 

That said, in a world where magic exists, its absolutely certain that people would figure out how to do lightning bolts and fireballs.  So not having those is a bit odd unless you specifically build a world in which this kind of thing is impossible, for some reason.

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

a world in which this kind of thing is impossible, for some reason.

 

Mandatory "Extra Time: 8 days" should so it.

 

[Mr. R]

So thank you for all your help.  I think I'll go with the following ideas:

 

I think a more elegant solution is weapon based MA.  I like the Four Bs from a while ago, and it will make warrior types differentiate themselves more (Like a Bull [two weapon] stylist using twin axes, another twin daggers and the last a classic sword and dagger combo).  I will also include at least two non weapon MA, for those who want to play a Caine type PC.  One will be very defensive, the other very aggressive. 

 

Deadly Blow- only to mimic something like a strike from behind, the classic thief ability!

 

Combat Luck- Since I am limiting armor (Leather is Def 2,  Studded is Def 4,  Chain is Def 6,  NO PLATE), this will help give some resistant def.  One level per 100 CP with a second if limited, like only in heavy armor OR even better Only in No Armor.  SO yes the MA type could have 6/6 def, but the moment he places a leather armor on... POOF gone!

 

Ideas?

[Scott Ruggels]

Deadly blow is one of those post 4e things? Splitting Deadly blow and deadly shot seem the most logical to do. 
 

I like combat magic, but then I do VFX for pay on rare occasions and enjoy the spectacle. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 1/29/2023 at 5:55 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Nope, because haymaker has huge drawbacks and fits genre fiction.  Deadly Blow is just "I do more damage just cuz lol"  Haymaker is "I swing as hard as I can from as far back as I can, and abandon all pretense of defense" which is extremely well represented in real life and fiction.  Backstab requires ambush and positioning, Deadly Blow just... works.

 

Deadly Blow works as well as you design it to work, with a commensurate cost.  One could just as easily describe a blast as "Magical Blast - it does damage at range just cuz lol".  The players and GMs add SFX to all mechanics, and this one is no different.

 

Backstab was so useless in D&D 1e and 2e that it was replaced with Sneak Attack so rogues could actually be useful in combat on a more regular basis.

 

On 1/30/2023 at 2:31 AM, Grailknight said:

As I said, if it worked this way, I'd be cool with it, but it doesn't. It instead says that goes from base to base +X DC's, gets all the Advantages for free and can be doubled from the new b

 

Pre-6e, Deadly Blow was an orphan mechanic - floating damage classes.  6e based Deadly Blow on skill levels adding DCs, so if your game imposes the doubling limit (which 6e also removed from the baseline rules and relegated to "optional" status), it could certainly restrict deadly blow.

 

All that means is that small, light weapons remain useless and will be shunned by most players.  They would be better off buying an enchanted dagger 2d6 HKA then investing in Deadly Blow for daggers., and even better off using a Greatsword, whether or not they buy skill levels, martial arts, high STR or deadly blow.

[Grailknight]

4 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Deadly Blow works as well as you design it to work, with a commensurate cost.  One could just as easily describe a blast as "Magical Blast - it does damage at range just cuz lol".  The players and GMs add SFX to all mechanics, and this one is no different.

 

Backstab was so useless in D&D 1e and 2e that it was replaced with Sneak Attack so rogues could actually be useful in combat on a more regular basis.

 

 

Pre-6e, Deadly Blow was an orphan mechanic - floating damage classes.  6e based Deadly Blow on skill levels adding DCs, so if your game imposes the doubling limit (which 6e also removed from the baseline rules and relegated to "optional" status), it could certainly restrict deadly blow.

 

All that means is that small, light weapons remain useless and will be shunned by most players.  They would be better off buying an enchanted dagger 2d6 HKA then investing in Deadly Blow for daggers., and even better off using a Greatsword, whether or not they buy skill levels, martial arts, high STR or deadly blow.

 

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear with my reasons. My main quibble with Deady Blow came with the character creation experience of a Dark Champions that i was asked to GM over a summer using 5th Edition rules.

 

The players had seen the old 4th Edition rules and material and wanted a change. Let's just say their expectations were a tad different than mine. I wanted ESWAT with 6-8 DC's and they tacked on 2-3 levels of Deadly Blow, 4-6 Level vs Hit Locations and 4-6 Combat Levels. My reaction upon seeing the initial sheets was ... poor. It took two sessions, but I finally got the message through to them that doing 5d6 AP KA's at 10 CV with their handguns and combat knives was just a little excessive. I finally had to show them this by running their Dark Champions PC's vs their regular Champions PC's. That was a brutal fight with the Champions PC's prevailing due to higher SPD. But two were killed outright and another had to be hospitalized. 

 

All was good after that, and we went on to have several other short campaigns that were pretty nice. 

[Mr. R]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

All that means is that small, light weapons remain useless and will be shunned by most players. 

 

I don't want that to happen.  I want the guy who knows Hand Axes SOOOOO well that in his hands they are extremely lethal.  I am trying to follow you guys for ideas, but this one lost me. 

 

So suggestions?

[Duke Bushido]

Hugh- in addition to being a cool head and a helpful conspirator- is something of a math and rules savant, meaning he can see things playing out in-game as soon as he starts to think about the subject at hand. 

 

The eest of have to stop and,thin a minute; we get nice "loading" screens while Hugh doubles his RAM and keeps going. 

 

The point he is making refers to the rules about "maximizing damage" that give clear limits on how much "extra" or "free" damage can be added to a weapon before the weapon breaks, malfunctions, or just is physically incapable of delivering more damage.  Typically (though I do not recall for 6e if this has changed) double the listed amount of damage for the weapon.

 

So lets look at three weapons:

 

A dagger, a sword, and a Warhammer.  Let"s randomly assign some damage values and STR minimums:

 

The dagger does 1/2 D6 K and has a STR Min of 0.

 

The sword does 2d6 K and has a STR Min of 5.

 

The warhammer does 2.5d6 K and has a STR Min of 7.

 

A character with a 10 STR Over the STR Minimum qualifies for another 1\2 D6 K with a weapon that does Killing Damage; if he exceeds the Min by 15, he can add a full die, and can add an additional full die for every 15 STR he has above that STR min.

 

Additionally, Skill Levels can be exchanged for extra damage, presumably the character is so skilled with the weapon that he can plunge it more deeply, or slide it between armored plates, or otherwise get more damage from that same weapon than can a lesser-skilled individual.

 

This is a good thing, because to get an extra die from STR alone when wielding the war hammer above is going to challenging- you'd need STR 22, which isnt going to found amongst the rank and file of the town guard too terribly often.

 

But with an STR 17, he can get that half-die, and a couple of Skill Levels allocated to  damage, he can round that up to a full die of extra damage.

 

This can keep going, of course: more STR and more Skill Levels will continue to stack and add die after die (ilor half-die or pip or whatever), right up until you hit the weapon' maximum potential.

 

That maximum potential for mundane weapons is typically double the listed damage for the weapon.

 

So if you have built your Deadly Blow as a collection of dedicated Skill Levels to grant you an extra 3 (or four, or whatever) Damage Classes, you have a decision to make.

 

Let's say your GM is running a "mid-level DnD" facsimile, and has allowed you to build a Deadly Blow that can add up to 2d6 Killing.  Now it is time to go shopping.  Which weapon do you buy?

 

 

Either the sword or the war hammer can handle your ability, but the dagger is going to cap at twice its listed value, or 1d6K.  It doesn't matter if your Deadly Blow adds (or rather, _can_ add) 2d6 and your STR: 27 or so can add another die-and-a-half; that dagger will only deliver a maximum of 1d6K.

 

The sword will deliver a maximum of 4d6.  Now it does 2d6 just by having STR: 5 and swinging it around.  Your STR:27 or so let's you add 1.5 more Killing Dice.  That means you can really only get 1/2 half a die out od your awesome deadly blow maneuver.  (Alternatively, you could use 2d6 from Deadly Blow and only the minimum (5) STR and save yourself some END expenditure, but this isn't that discussion).

 

Now the war hammer abive can be doubled up to 5 killing dice!  It's base of 2.5 can accomodate both of your Deadly Blow dice, and you can still squeeze a bit of STR bonus in there to boot!

 

Hugh's suggestion of an enchanted weapon is, I believe, pointing out the waste of points that Deadly Blow is when purchased for a small weapon, at least under the current rules, and it also points out that there is and always has been a work around via non-mundane weapons: a magic weapon does the damage it says it does, even if it is ludicrous:  behold: the Thimble of Internal Bleeding, which deals 4d6 KA and 1d6 Drain:Recovery!  I laugh mercilessly at your Deadly-deadly daggers!

 

(What Hugh points out here is the biggest- not the only, but the biggest- reason when my Players want a super-smite maneuver, I build it as +damage instead of any kind of skill, maneuver, or talent.  _Mechanically_, +damage is _in addition to_ what you can do with the weapon already.  It is now a quasi-magical level of ability and not tied to the limits of the weapon.  I just like to avoid headaches and keep things rolling).

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

For Duke:

 

6e took a rather schizophrenic approach to the "Doubling Damage" rules.

 

First, it went right back to 1e and removed the limit on HKAs.  A 60 STR Super with a 1d6 HKA gets 5d6 HKA.  That meant that Deadly Blow based on skill levels would get its full damage addition.

 

But then it added a Toolkitting sidebar to watch out for abuses like buying "small attacks and greatly increase them with the Adding Damage rules".  That sidebar suggested the Double Damage rules, perhaps as the general rule for Heroic games.

 

It then immediately suggests a Hand Attack add to base STR damage, and that velocity damage not be subject to the doubling rule. Extra DCs for marital maneuvers are base damage if used for basic HTH, but added damage if applied to a weapon.  So back to a lot of complexity for adding damage.

 

From Fact to Speculation

 

I think the decision to change deadly blow to skill levels was a parallel decision and the two were never reconciled.  The sidebar does not mention Deadly Blow.

 

From Speculation to Personal Opinion

 

I've often questioned why HKA (and only HKA) gets to be boosted by STR.  I can abide by Hand Attack really being "STR, only increases damage", so I leave that out.  Why not 2d6 HKA, +2d6 HKA (requires X STR over Y STR Minimum)?  For a Supers game, Unified Power linking the HKA to STR is also an option.

 

A more complicated build?  Sure.  But it would typically be used for weapons purchased with money, not points, and those builds are already plenty complex - but buried behind the scenes.  This would be one more thing buried behind the scenes.

 

Practically, I'm OK with the unlimited ability to add damage anyway.  It's a compromise many other games make for simplicity.  If you are super-skilled with knife fighting, being able to do more than 1d6+1 KA with a knife hardly seems unreasonable, much less game-breaking.  7 BOD x 2 for a head hit seems like a low cap when I look at skilled knife fighters in source material.  Seems like skilled archers take out targets with a single arrow as well, and I don't think they are using the heaviest of bows (mind you, they don't seem to have Concentration as a limitation either). 

 

This does not prevent campaign DC maximums either.  The bigger issue, to my mind, is one character with a 4d6+1 KA while the rest cap out at 2d6 - 3d6, not how they are inflicting that damage.

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, Hugh.

 

There are one or two things there I want to ask about, but they will have to wait till later.

 

 

[Mr. R]

On 1/31/2023 at 8:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Pre-6e, Deadly Blow was an orphan mechanic - floating damage classes.  6e based Deadly Blow on skill levels adding DCs, so if your game imposes the doubling limit (which 6e also removed from the baseline rules and relegated to "optional" status), it could certainly restrict deadly blow.

 

 

OK where did this get mentioned?  The thought of that old school villain the Monster with a 2d6 HKA and 60 Str can now do a whoping 6d6 HKA scares the *&^% out of me!

 

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

(What Hugh points out here is the biggest- not the only, but the biggest- reason when my Players want a super-smite maneuver, I build it as +damage instead of any kind of skill, maneuver, or talent.  _Mechanically_, +damage is _in addition to_ what you can do with the weapon already.  It is now a quasi-magical level of ability and not tied to the limits of the weapon.  I just like to avoid headaches and keep things rolling).

 

 

I like this as it seems easier to explain and implement.  I am going for Plug and Play ideas as I will never be sure whether I will have people who know Hero as players.  (Heck I was in a Palladium game where one of the players forgot to check what level her experience indicated for two whole levels.  After we checked it turns out she had just been adding exp pts since level eight and she was now technically level ten.  No one noticed because she was SUCH a great role-player. )

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I want the guy who knows Hand Axes SOOOOO well that in his hands they are extremely lethal.  I am trying to follow you guys for ideas, but this one lost me. 

 

Usually the best way to represent this is with martial arts, or skill levels.  And specialty axes (these are extra light and sharp!).

[Mr. R]

So I use HD for 5th Ed and it has Deadly Blow.  So I will use that, but interpret it as adding to the Base damage but with Limitations, like backstab OR limited by weapon type, only daggers/knives.

 

So you have a pair of daggers and have the twin weapon MA style and Deadly Blow (Daggers / Knives).  

Dagger 1/2 HKA str min 5

Character has str 10 

Has Deadly Blow

Uses maneuver that adds +2 dam classes

 

Dagger is now 1 1/2 d6 base, 2d6 w/str, 2 1/2 d6 w/ maneuver. 

 

If he wanted to use it with swords, he'll need to buy DB w/swords

Sword 1d6+1 HKA str min 10

Character has str 10 

Has Deadly Blow

Uses maneuver that adds +2 dam classes

 

Sword is now 2d6+1 base, Nothing for str, 3d6 w/ maneuver.

 

 

I think I can live with this.  

 

Note I know I'll get the person who say "Can I use twin Broad Swords?"  Well if you have the strength, yeah, but seriously he may want to use Sword Board Style.  But He has Str 18.

OK...

Broad Sword 1 1/2 HKA str min 13

Character has str 18 

Has Deadly Blow

Uses maneuver that adds +2 dam classes

 

BS 2 1/2 d6 base, 3d6 w/ str,  3 1/2 d6 w/ maneuver

 

 

Anything I need to watch out for?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On 2/1/2023 at 6:05 PM, Mr. R said:

OK where did this get mentioned?  The thought of that old school villain the Monster with a 2d6 HKA and 60 Str can now do a whoping 6d6 HKA scares the *&^% out of me!

 

1e Monster had a 1d6 HKA (5d6+1 with STR) as I recall.  Then he got no extra KA in 2e, and dropped to a 2d6 KA with STR; not really the same character.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 6:13 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Usually the best way to represent this is with martial arts, or skill levels.  And specialty axes (these are extra light and sharp!).

 

So, Deadly Blow with axes he has had a few days to customize? 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So, Deadly Blow with axes he has had a few days to customize?

 

Only if the axe doesn't give anyone else any benefits for some bizarre reason, I guess?

[Duke Bushido]

32 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Only if the axe doesn't give anyone else any benefits for some bizarre reason, I guess?

Interestingly, this one is real-world explainable:

 

An axe is extremely easy to dull when used incorrectly, and because of their mass and striking impact, must be sharpened differently from any other edged weapon: too dull and it becomes a club; too sharp and the edged will chip and /or roll and again-  it becomes a club.  Even the wrist-twist at the time of impact can cause the axe to strike more in the face of the grind than on the edge.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

There you go - you need to know how to use that customized axe properly.  In my character's hands, significant advantage.  In anyone else's, disaster.

 

If he were not such a master swordsman, there would be no need for a sword specially customized for his six-fingered hand!

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Interestingly, this one is real-world explainable

 

But that would be true about every axe, not just this one.

I'm not saying you cannot possibly come up with an explanation, just that Deadly Blow is a really lousy way to simulate it.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

But that would be true about every axe, not just this one.

 

 

 

You are quite right: it is true for every axe (or at least, every ine that I have ever had to use and maintain.

 

The part of the question that I was addressing qas the "customized" axe: if it has been balanced and honed for person with a particular swing, technique, and size, then it becomes less useful for someone who differs in a category, and less useful still for each additional are in which they are not the ideal for which the custom work has been suited.

 

And it doesn't take much:  I spent the better part of a year working with a guy who was as useless with crooked handle as I am with a straight one.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

Deadly blow has its uses, but like anything can be abused.   Besides a thief’s backstab it can also be used for a paladin’s smite evil.   I allow it in a heroic game but usually limit it to a single die.

[Duke Bushido]

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

For Duke:

 

6e took a rather schizophrenic approach to the "Doubling Damage" rules.

 

First, it went right back to 1e and removed the limit on HKAs.  A 60 STR Super with a 1d6 HKA gets 5d6 HKA.  That meant that Deadly Blow based on skill levels would get its full damage addition.

 

Thanks, Hugh; I apologize foe the length of time it took to respond, but the more I use this phone to participate on the forum, the more I don'r want to use this phone to participate on the forum. 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

.  So back to a lot of complexity for adding damage.

 

So it seems.  For what it is worth: I read 6e one time, all the way through, to include the Apts and pretty much all of the Blue Books.  I am not going to read them again because  I know that there isnt anything in there that I want to adopt that I am not already sort of doing anyway.  My biggest problem with the entire presentation:  there are enough options to almost any rule that the rules set itself,is useless as a rules set.  As many have pointed out, you can pick and choose rules to build a game, but- and maybe it's my age, or maybe it's me remembering when there was a game in there,  but I have no interest in doing that.

 

Again: I am not bashing 6e; I am simply stating that while it may ideal for millions of people, I am not one of them.

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

From Fact to Speculation

 

I think the decision to change deadly blow to skill levels was a parallel decision and the two were never reconciled.

 

I suspect it is because it makes it being _skilled- with a particular weapon or class of them, as opposed to empowered.  That being said, though, I think most of us have done skills as  powers and powers as skills over the years, and have had zero issues with it.

 

As Skill Levels, though, there is already a damage mechanic in place, so that conforms, and the "skill: Deadly Blow" is limited to where the skill levels may be applied, be it melee, swords, or 'my particular sword,' with pricing fluctuations to match.

 

My only quibble with from a rules standpoint is that it doesnt stand out as unique from damage added by Skill Levels; it is merely more of the same.

 

Also, I think this puts Deadly Blow more in line with its source material: is the D and D maneuver not a skill that the wielder can brinf to bear from weapon to weapon?

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I've often questioned why HKA (and only HKA) gets to be boosted by STR. 

 

You know exactly why, Sir, but we son't talk about it (you and I, I mean) because you don't like the idea and I don't like the ramificarions for the game, ans the conversation itself gets a little loopy.   

 

on a relates note, though: I allow particularly expwnsive longbows to be built as HKA with the "range" advantage to allow for the over-draw that a strong character shouls be able to perform and a sturdy bow should be able to handle.  It doesnt net much extra, but ir soes have a reward, and a well-enough placed shot with a lucky roll can kill in an instant.  Of course, a head can kill with a sling stone, so hey....

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I can abide by Hand Attack really being "STR, only increases damage"

 

remember before there was a rule on how to do it?  Some did it as you suggest here; others did "EB: no range," and when different groups got together the disagreements were always amusing.  Some felt the STR model meant that this damage could increase STR damage while the EB-based model could not because it was a separate thing- energy blast.

 

Now for what it'a worth, I get the point, and academically, I would enjoy the discussion, but at the end of the day, they were arguing that paying 3pts/die one way worked, and letting the other 3pts/die build work was wrong.  I mean, you agree on how much it cost a to add a die to punch damage, then just run with it.

(My favorite way to toss a wrench into this was to ask how their EB damage worked with Martial Arts. yeah, I shouldnt have, but like I said: academically, it's a fun discussion.)

 

Maybe we should move it beyond question: on staff of building something from something else, just have an add-is entry: extra normal damage.  Adds to X attack where X is defined at purchase.  Works great for Strength, and it even works for Blast: dice bought this way to not increase range.

 

Oh, but the acrive points "problem."  We could ignore it, since it is largely fictional;  if you have a GM involved, it is completely fictional, but we spend a lot of effort invenrinf corner cases that no GM would allow so that we can continue to hold it dear.

 

Okay- that last one may be just me, but I expect that if seasoned Cms look back across their HERO careers, they won't find many instances of a game broken by differing AP.

 

And id we just has the power: Extra Normal Damage at 3pts a die, then we Don't have an AP  issue anyway: it is 3 AP.  One might decide there is an END cost problem, and the potential to "cheat" by using only one 5pt die and then stacking 3pt dice for lower-powered attacks, and Goodman would probably recommend it, but either restrict it in a way you appreciate or ignore it.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 so I leave that out.  Why not 2d6 HKA, +2d6 HKA (requires X STR over Y STR Minimum)?

 

I promised myself I wouldnt talk about "the subject" out of deference to - well, to everyone on the board, but some bait is harder to leave alone that others. Sir. 

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

it would typically be used for weapons purchased with money, not points, and those builds are already plenty complex - but buried behind the scenes. 

 

Right: buried behind the the scenes, and bought with not-points.  Both id those taken as inviolable, I tend to marvel at the complication of some of the builds.  I mean, some things make sense: range limited by strength, charges.  But then we get to "recoverable charges,' and the problems start.  Any GM is going to recognize that arrows can be recovered (to a point).  And a player should know that some arrows are going to be too damaged to re-use or simply lost (you fired forty meters into the thorny underbrush when you missed, for example).  So you have to make a choice again: stay with the more complex idea of recoverable charges, and keep stacking modifiers and mechanics to determine the condition and findability of each individual arrow and hiw long it takes per arrow- or maybe create a system whereby each step down the time chart spent looking adds a bonus to the findability but not the condition, or perhaps the number od arrows recovered-- all of those various limitations have in-game significance, and many have specific mechanics, and if you are stackinf them relentlessly just to prove you can make a bow cost  2 pts but dont actually go through all the motions _and_ arent charginf character ooints to begin with, then what is the point?  Eventually it just becomes showboating, and when it gets uncovered, it leads to more sticker-shock about how complicated an unattainable HERO is, as well as reinforce the undeserved belief that someone doing something different is somehiw "having fun wrong."

 

What is wrong with building a sword as 2s6 HKA, and leaving it alone?  What is wrinf with building a bow as 2dk RKA, and leaving it alone?  A staff as 4d6 Hand to Hand Attack (some of those 3pt normal damage dice), and leaving it alone?

 

"Well, the disadvantages drop the points cost."  We arent charging points.

 

"Well they enforce certain strengths and limitations of the weapon."  No; they don't.  The GM and the Players do that, and they do it by rememberinf to apply them at appropriate times. 

 

No one playing D and D has to buy a bow for which they can recover arrows; they _know_ they can recover arrows because they understand how the bow works.  They don't demand that  they can recover every arrow because the specific limitation says "recoverable charges, so yes that includes the four that I point-blanked into that stone wall, Jerry!"  They trust their judgment and the GM's decision making to deteemine what can be salvaged and what can't.  Yes, it is entirely possible to concoct a thesis-worth of modifiers, but again: why?  It is all going to be hidden behind "this is a bow andbhere is how it works in this game, and it costs this many pieces of silver.

 

Now That ia just one way of looking at, honestly. 

 

Now I do tend to have a few things tied to my weapons builds, but only because- and only when- I want to edpand the options for   skills,beyond mere 'skill levels.'  But we will get to that in a minute.

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Practically, I'm OK with the unlimited ability to add damage anyway. 

 

Ditto.  I am not wven particularly fussy about id you so it via Skill Levels or via a "super skill" such as +1/2d6 KA with daggers.  I am good either way.  For some concepts, one may feel better to the player than the other (like the 3pts/d6 "extra damage" conversations of days gone by, mentioned above).

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 If you are super-skilled with knife fighting, being able to do more than 1d6+1 KA with a knife hardly seems unreasonable, much less game-breaking.

 

Agreed.  And as popular as the idea of being "really good with weapon X" is, I would like to point out that the most common way I see this skill modeled is (in HERO) with Skill Levels or (D and D and its clones)  "weapon +1".   The ol' Hackmaster +12, the Plus 2 Sword od fighting- that kind of thing.

 

I expect it was D and D's earliy model that laid the pattern, and others just followed it, attempting to port it into their own favorite systems.  Are you skilled with a sword?  You get to-hit bonuses. ,is it a particularly good sword?  You get damage bonuses.  Hero's skill levels can even be shifted around to five yourself a little from each column, like the early bird special at a seventies diner.  And of course, we have that third "range modifier" column for dessert (or the new PSL, if you prefer).

 

But the complex builds offer something, too- something that can be equally useful to demonstrate unusual skill, but that I rarely see in heroic games outside my own.

 

For example:

 

How about a "skill" of points that allows the wielder to negate the limitation 'concentrate" from up to 1d6 KA worth of long bow damage?  Rhe wielder is so skilled with this weapon that he can fire off quickly-snapped shots without breaking stride or losing his combat orientation.  Sure, they are half-draws at 1d6, but he can do almost without thinking about it.   Make him legendary: he can do it with a full damage, dull draw if he ponies up for this "skill."

 

Similarly, he may have an added die of damage just bought outright: plus 1d6 with longbows.  He may have a "skill" of autofire for up to five shots (with perhaps a "full phase" requirement), or- well, let's assume a bow that does 1.5 d6.  He has a second 1.5d6 with enough "reduced penetration" rebate to cover 2d6.  He has a "skill" that lets him fire two arrows at once (at the same target).

 

While HERO is _not_ my favorite system for Heroic level games, this is entirely because of the lack of granularity at "normal human" levels.  In terms of what can be simulated as talents, skills, and-- if you will all forgive me for saying it aloud--  "feats,"  HERO can do things that no other system can do by _default_.  The corollary to "more complex builds" is "more interesting ways to model exceptionalism.

 

I can plunk down a few points for Skill Levels and end up with the ability to alter my range penalties or improve my chance to hit or invrease my damage, but that isnt _all_ I can do to build Legolas!  I can create a "skill" that lets him autofire double-arrowed shots five times in a single phase!  I can make him so keenly observant that he is able to plave every shot at a break or weak point in the armor (armor pierxinf on up to XD6 of arrow damage).

 

Okay, you guessed it.

 

I am not making a case for or against simpler or more complex builds.  I am making the case that it is not just "build exactly what you want," but instead is "decide what you want, and build the world accordingly.accordingly."

 

You want a fast, easy to play, quick to pick up game?  Simple builds and agreement up-dront on how things work, and boom- go play.

 

You think that after all the characters in the party have five or six skill levels that there is no fun way to improve them?  Complucate the builds a bit, and allow them to create the skills to interact with those builds in impressive new ways.

 

It is kind of like the consecrated ground discussion a while back: so I use Chanbe Environment or somw other area effecr power to damage only "unholy things," and id so how do I power it and pay for it and activate it?  Or do I build unholy things with specific vulnerabilities to consecrated ground?

 

Again: the easy way is dine; the xomplicated way is fine.  Think about the nuances and decide if the stuff around the edges is  studd that you want to play with.  If it isn't, go simple.  If it is, go nuts.

 

And that is where I find rhe lack of an actual game,to be a weakness in the new edition.  How so people learn this?  Most of us started with a version that was a ready-to-play game, and grew into the complexity as our experience and comfort increased.   The new edition gives you a ton of options- options for everything-- and I mean _everything!  Honestly, do we really need an optional way to roll to-hit dice?  Really?  "Here is the most basic function of an adventure game.  This is how it works.  Bur you might not like that, so here is a whole different thing you can do.  (Yes; I know people are already chafing at the bit to tell me why that is so extremely important.  Just remember that most od the arfuments I have heard in favor of its importance depend on the assumption that prospecrive players are intelligent enough to digure out the thousand-plus pages of rules,  yet still somehow to stupid to grasp the to-hit mechanic.  I don't know who these people are, but bless them.  They need it.

 

 

 

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

This does not prevent campaign DC maximums either.  The bigger issue, to my mind, is one character with a 4d6+1 KA while the rest cap out at 2d6 - 3d6, not how they are inflicting that damage.

 

 

I do not disagree with you, Sir, but woekinf from,this phone intergace has taken me,_hours_ to ger this far, and- with all respect for you and anyone else following along, always-- and while I am still in good humor, I have to bow out now.

 

Good night, folks.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Thanks, Hugh; I apologize foe the length of time it took to respond, but the more I use this phone to participate on the forum, the more I don'r want to use this phone to participate on the forum. 

 

As I hate typing on a phone for a 2 line text message, I definitely get that!

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

So it seems.  For what it is worth: I read 6e one time, all the way through, to include the Apts and pretty much all of the Blue Books.  I am not going to read them again because  I know that there isnt anything in there that I want to adopt that I am not already sort of doing anyway.  My biggest problem with the entire presentation:  there are enough options to almost any rule that the rules set itself,is useless as a rules set.  As many have pointed out, you can pick and choose rules to build a game, but- and maybe it's my age, or maybe it's me remembering when there was a game in there,  but I have no interest in doing that.

 

IMO, Hero evolved (between 3e and 5e with 4e being the intermediary link) from being "the rules used for this suite of games" to "a system for building your own games".  In the course of doing so, I think it evolved right out of the market.  The market was moving from young folks with tons of time on their hands, who did a lot of their own world design and adventure writing, to older folks with added constraints on their time and, on average, more disposable income.  They wanted more pre-fab materials.  This was also WOTCs error that Paizo seized on - WOTC wanted out of the "adventures" business as they did not sell.  Paizo built adventures, and adventure paths, catering to those older gamers wanting to buy a campaign.  That did so well they had to write their own game so people could keep buying the adventures!

 

I have never read 5e or 6e cover to cover.  Experienced Hero gamers start playing, and look up specific rules as you go.  Inexperienced Hero gamers either find inexperienced gamers to play with so they can learn or they go buy a game instead of a game design system.

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I suspect it is because it makes it being _skilled- with a particular weapon or class of them, as opposed to empowered.  That being said, though, I think most of us have done skills as  powers and powers as skills over the years, and have had zero issues with it.

 

As Skill Levels, though, there is already a damage mechanic in place, so that conforms, and the "skill: Deadly Blow" is limited to where the skill levels may be applied, be it melee, swords, or 'my particular sword,' with pricing fluctuations to match.

 

My only quibble with from a rules standpoint is that it doesnt stand out as unique from damage added by Skill Levels; it is merely more of the same.

 

Deadly Blow always suffered from being an orphan mechanic.  If I can buy a "floating DC" that only works when I am attacking from surprise, or when the opponent is evil, or when it's a dragon, or whatever - why can't I just buy a "floating DC" that applies to all attacks, under all circumstances? At least part of the reason for the skill level model, in my opinion, was to integrate Deadly Blow into existing rules and get rid of the "floating DC" controversy.

 

As to source material, this can be a Sneak Attack, a ranger's favoured enemy, extra-powerful Cold spells or a Paladin's Smite Evil, so it may or may not have skill-based SFX.

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

remember before there was a rule on how to do it?  Some did it as you suggest here; others did "EB: no range," and when different groups got together the disagreements were always amusing.  Some felt the STR model meant that this damage could increase STR damage while the EB-based model could not because it was a separate thing- energy blast.

 

If it's EB, I should be able to Spread for more OCV, shouldn't I?  In my view, just make extra HTH DCs limited STR.  Perhaps:

 

Only does normal damage  -3/4

Only enhances DCs from one set of maneuvers (standard or Martial Arts) -1/2

Only enhances DCs for all maneuvers -1/4

 

For 4 points you get "all maneuvers" instead of just Martial Maneuvers, but it costs END.  If you want 0 END martial maneuvers, they become 5 points.

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Oh, but the acrive points "problem."  We could ignore it, since it is largely fictional;  if you have a GM involved, it is completely fictional, but we spend a lot of effort invenrinf corner cases that no GM would allow so that we can continue to hold it dear.

 

Now we are back to "you need experience in Hero to play or run Hero".  I believe the decision to remove 3 point Hand Attack was based on experiences where a 60 point Multipower had a 4d6 RKA, a 12d6 Blast and a 20d6 Hand Attack - which is the "obvious" build - why save 2 points by having a smaller hand attack slot? Making it 5 AP to remove an issue for newbie Hero gamers makes a lot of sense to me.

 

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

"Well they enforce certain strengths and limitations of the weapon."  No; they don't.  The GM and the Players do that, and they do it by rememberinf to apply them at appropriate times. 

 

No one playing D and D has to buy a bow for which they can recover arrows; they _know_ they can recover arrows because they understand how the bow works.  They don't demand that  they can recover every arrow because the specific limitation says "recoverable charges, so yes that includes the four that I point-blanked into that stone wall, Jerry!"  They trust their judgment and the GM's decision making to deteemine what can be salvaged and what can't.  Yes, it is entirely possible to concoct a thesis-worth of modifiers, but again: why?  It is all going to be hidden behind "this is a bow andbhere is how it works in this game, and it costs this many pieces of silver.

.

Until D&D added a rule that arrows that hit are destroyed and arrows that miss have a 50/50 chance of being recoverable, there were fights over that too.  However, having the builds doesn't prevent just having the strengths and limitations in the background. I think adding the builds and points came from the desire to build custom equipment, and to have spells that could augment equipment.  Putting those builds in an Appendix not needed for gameplay in a real game would make a lot of sense.  If you don't want to tinker, you don't need all the fidgety details.

 

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

For example:

 

How about a "skill" of points that allows the wielder to negate the limitation 'concentrate" from up to 1d6 KA worth of long bow damage?  Rhe wielder is so skilled with this weapon that he can fire off quickly-snapped shots without breaking stride or losing his combat orientation.  Sure, they are half-draws at 1d6, but he can do almost without thinking about it.   Make him legendary: he can do it with a full damage, dull draw if he ponies up for this "skill."

 

I'm not digging for whether it is RAW, but I would allow a "naked limitation buyoff" like a naked advantage.  If you want to be able to fire half draws for up to 1d6 without that -1/2 Concentration limitation, then pay 1/3 the AP for that 1d6 (with all its advantages) KA. That is, a 1d6 RKA, 0 END would cost 22.5 AP, and a -1/2 limitation would save 7.5 points so start with 7.5 base points and limit as you see fit.  The AP for each weapon is on the chart, so it's easy to see, or at least extrapolate a reduced cost.

 

For a "Game Powered by Hero", put these in Talents.

 

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

While HERO is _not_ my favorite system for Heroic level games, this is entirely because of the lack of granularity at "normal human" levels.  In terms of what can be simulated as talents, skills, and-- if you will all forgive me for saying it aloud--  "feats,"  HERO can do things that no other system can do by _default_.  The corollary to "more complex builds" is "more interesting ways to model exceptionalism.

 

Agreed.  The price of flexibility is complexity.

 

If we assume PCs with stats of 8 - 23, we have 11- to 14-.  In D&D, stats of 8 - 20 go from -1 to +5, so we have about half that granularity.  We could complicate matters if we provided a slim chance of success for extra stats.  Maybe if your stat is 11, 16 or 21, you have a 50% chance of success when you "fail" by 1 (much like that 3 extra STR over 5 gets you 1/2d6 normal damage).  We could make it even more granular.

 

But D&D charaters are "notable" for big bonuses. Hero provides more options, as you note.

 

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

And that is where I find rhe lack of an actual game,to be a weakness in the new edition.  How so people learn this?  Most of us started with a version that was a ready-to-play game, and grew into the complexity as our experience and comfort increased.   The new edition gives you a ton of options- options for everything-- and I mean _everything!  Honestly, do we really need an optional way to roll to-hit dice?  Really?  "Here is the most basic function of an adventure game.  This is how it works.  Bur you might not like that, so here is a whole different thing you can do.  (Yes; I know people are already chafing at the bit to tell me why that is so extremely important.  Just remember that most od the arfuments I have heard in favor of its importance depend on the assumption that prospecrive players are intelligent enough to digure out the thousand-plus pages of rules,  yet still somehow to stupid to grasp the to-hit mechanic.  I don't know who these people are, but bless them.  They need it.

 

In fairness, Champions 1e was really a big bundle of mechanics, no setting (look at a comic book, or just outside your window) and a few sample characters to set the expected power level.  It wasn't much of a game.   But that was true of many games at that time, even if they had some setting elements for fantasy or sci fi.  The "setting" and "game" was largely derived from the assumption gamers knew the source material.

 

However, I agree that what Hero really needs are games that use the Hero system, with the full-blown system really being an "optional extra".  You want to add your own superpowers, or tweak existing ones?  Buy the Systems Manual.  You want to keep it simple?  Buy the next SuperPowers Sourcebook.

 

As to the whole HKA thing, I get the "controversy".  It is an exception to the "you get what you pay for" meta-rule.  It also creates build issues. If I have 15 STR and Claws, why should I pay 60 points for a 4d6 HKA instead of 50 points for an RKA, No Range?  If the Doubling rule is in effect, how many characters had 10 STR and 3d6+1 Claws?  They had 2d6 Claws and 30 STR.

 

But there is a logical disconnect when the scrawny wizard and the mighty barbarian do the same damage with a broadsword. OK, I get that.  But there is also a logical disconnect that a character who can easily weather the cold of deep space and the heat of a sun takes damage from a flamethrower or a cold blast.  We have plenty of logical disconnects to go around. Why is the "STR adds to HKA" the only one that cries out to be fixed?

 

As well, with Combined Attacks, can't that 30 STR character with 2d6 HKA claws do a 4d6 HKA combined with a 6d6 Normal Punch?  Can't the Barbarian do that too?  Why can't a 40 STR martial artist do a 2d6 Nerve Strike plus 8d6 Strike as a Combined Attack? Well, it seems illogical that his Nerve Strike does the same damage as that ancient MA Master who has only a 5 STR anyway.

[GDShore]

I can speak with some real world experience on recoverable charges for arrows. Back when I actively fought bow and arrow against the tin and flannel set (armored types) I would usually take about 60 prepared arrows and lose (to damage and simply lost) 15 to 20 arrows, works out to 25% to 30%. I cannot remember anyone in the 17 years between 1980 and 2000 ever using or wanting to use deadly blow. They worked on skill levels instead. I am still debating on using martial arts types in my new campaign.