Strike Force (original) Translating Powers to Current HERO

[greypaladin_01]

I have been re-reading my old copy of Strike Force once again, this time looking more closely at the character builds in the book.   My understanding is the bulk of the rules used are Champions 3e, however there appears to be mix of 2e/DI/Justice Inc as well.    There are a few powers listed that I cannot find reference in the books that I have and hoping for some help with sorting out what they are, and what the modern equivalent would be.

Specifically these:

- Mental Paralysis:  my guess is this would be a Based on EGO version of Entangle?

- Healing:  simple healing from 5e? 

- Destruction:  my guess is some form of long term Drain?

 

Am I on the right track for these thoughts?

[Christopher R Taylor]

- Mental Paralysis:  my guess is this would be a Based on EGO version of Entangle?

 

That is the build now, yes.  Basically that's what it was, without the modifiers listed.

 

- Healing:  simple healing from 5e? 

 

Healing was for 10 points you heal body and stun like a normal attack deals body and stun

 

- Destruction:  my guess is some form of long term Drain?

 

Yeah it was a drain that healed like Body damage: REC/month.  Cost 15 points per d6

[greypaladin_01]

Awesome,  glad I was on the right track for my guesses.  

Did they have something to help 'heal' Destruction faster than REC/Month?   Given that AID usually fades with time, I am not sure how this would shake out.

[vindeishi]

Aaron Allston's Strike Force, available in the Hero Games store, includes updated versions of the characters (if you want a comparison).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Did they have something to help 'heal' Destruction faster than REC/Month? 

 

No, it came originally from Fantasy Hero, then was picked up in Champions III.  You had drain, which was recovery/turn and destroy which was recovery/month.  They didn't come up with the modifiers to change the delay between recovery until 4th edition, which negated destruction as a power.

[greypaladin_01]

3 hours ago, vindeishi said:

Aaron Allston's Strike Force, available in the Hero Games store, includes updated versions of the characters (if you want a comparison).

 

Thank you!  I'll check it out.

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

No, it came originally from Fantasy Hero, then was picked up in Champions III.  You had drain, which was recovery/turn and destroy which was recovery/month.  They didn't come up with the modifiers to change the delay between recovery until 4th edition, which negated destruction as a power.

 

Geez.  That sounds extremely rough... especially if time is the only means to recover.   Although I can see how it would make for a good Dark/Low Fantasy Hero element.

[Cloppy Clip]

This Destruction power sounds interesting, even if by the sounds of it you can replicate it near enough with Delayed Return Rate. Out of curiosity, if Drain and Destruction (or Drain with Delayed Return Rate) used to return the points at REC/turn and REC/month, instead of the 5/turn and 5/month we have now, would it be possible to have a +0 modifier that replaces the 5 points per turn with REC? It's a thought I've sometimes had while thinking up powers that, in the fictional world of the game, would heal back like physical injuries and therefore be affected by the victim's REC. Or was this something changed for a good game-balance reason that I don't know about?

[Tech]

Destruction was built on 15 pts per 1d6, the same as Killing Attack. The thought being if a KA attacks the BODY stat, then Destruction for the same cost attacked other stats. That's about all I remember at the moment.

[dmjalund]

4 hours ago, Cloppy Clip said:

This Destruction power sounds interesting, even if by the sounds of it you can replicate it near enough with Delayed Return Rate. Out of curiosity, if Drain and Destruction (or Drain with Delayed Return Rate) used to return the points at REC/turn and REC/month, instead of the 5/turn and 5/month we have now, would it be possible to have a +0 modifier that replaces the 5 points per turn with REC? It's a thought I've sometimes had while thinking up powers that, in the fictional world of the game, would heal back like physical injuries and therefore be affected by the victim's REC. Or was this something changed for a good game-balance reason that I don't know about?

i think the main concern was if they also destroyed their REC stat, they could prevent the person healing the Characteristic indefinitely

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

i think the main concern was if they also destroyed their REC stat, they could prevent the person healing the Characteristic indefinitely

 

Right, the rules wanted to separate the regeneration of drained stats from REC, so that draining REC wasn't so devastating.  You can still effectively have that by buying the recovery of the drain to a month or longer.  I've posted on this before but I created a whole category of undead that came about from REC destruction effects.  Without being able to recover, you inevitably use up all your END, then all your STN, then die of starvation and thirst in a coma just by walking around and using your STR.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Cloppy Clip]

So there was indeed a good game-balance reason I'd missed! Yes, I hadn't thought about draining REC, but that would definitely do it. So, in that case, would this Destruction effect be completely replaced by a Delayed Return Rate Drain, for the purposes of a 6E game?

[Grailknight]

19 hours ago, Cloppy Clip said:

So there was indeed a good game-balance reason I'd missed! Yes, I hadn't thought about draining REC, but that would definitely do it. So, in that case, would this Destruction effect be completely replaced by a Delayed Return Rate Drain, for the purposes of a 6E game?

 

Yes, but to get the identical return rate costs more.

 

Drain STUN 1d6, Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Month; +2 3/4) (37 Active Points)

 

If you make it 5 per week, then it costs 35 Active.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Grailknight

[Cloppy Clip]

I suppose that's just the risk you run when switching between editions, where the exact point costs can shift about. At least it's not something like D&D, where it almost looks like you're playing a different game depending on the edition!

[greypaladin_01]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:41 AM, Cloppy Clip said:

I suppose that's just the risk you run when switching between editions, where the exact point costs can shift about. At least it's not something like D&D, where it almost looks like you're playing a different game depending on the edition!

 

Very much the case.  Each edition seems to change costing on various things, I am sure as an attempt at balance, but then also tends to give big increases to the Character Points provided to characters... so I'm not sure if there really is a net change in the end.

[Cloppy Clip]

It sometimes gets to the point where I figure that, if the rules worked one way in that edition and another in this one, and presumably people were happy enough playing both versions, then the game won't fall apart completely if I tweak a few things. I think the game's precision can sometimes be misleading, where people assume that the specific points costs for abilities mean that the ability must be worth that much, and not one point more or less. Actually, I think the game is much more flexible than it can sometimes appear to new players, and these slight changes through its lifetime are my proof of that.

[greypaladin_01]

34 minutes ago, Cloppy Clip said:

It sometimes gets to the point where I figure that, if the rules worked one way in that edition and another in this one, and presumably people were happy enough playing both versions, then the game won't fall apart completely if I tweak a few things. I think the game's precision can sometimes be misleading, where people assume that the specific points costs for abilities mean that the ability must be worth that much, and not one point more or less. Actually, I think the game is much more flexible than it can sometimes appear to new players, and these slight changes through its lifetime are my proof of that.

 

I agree.  While there probably is an argument that could be made the some things are over/under priced for their effect per edition, I think that many of the changes stem from some type of obsessive need to codify everything. No matter how minor.

The best example I can think of was how Instant Change was just it's own thing up through 4th Edition costing 5/10 points depending on just how much you could alter your clothing.   However starting in 5th edition it was removed and instead turned into something like Transform: 1d6 (a dozen modifiers and advantages/limitations)  that made the cost result to something like 6/12.    Was there REALLY a need to complicate things to that level and was the 1-2 point increase that vital to 'balance'?

 

It has been stated elsewhere in the boards but campaign limits to things like DC and DEF are much more balancing than point costs overall.   In fact, you could probably grab a villain character sheet from as far bac as 3rd edition and just run them in a 6e game as is and it would usually function just fine.   Certainly the 4th edtion ones....   The same goes for PCs made in different editions, there is really only a very small grouping of abilities that had massive overhauls.

[Sketchpad]

10 hours ago, greypaladin_01 said:

The best example I can think of was how Instant Change was just it's own thing up through 4th Edition costing 5/10 points depending on just how much you could alter your clothing.   However starting in 5th edition it was removed and instead turned into something like Transform: 1d6 (a dozen modifiers and advantages/limitations)  that made the cost result to something like 6/12.    Was there REALLY a need to complicate things to that level and was the 1-2 point increase that vital to 'balance'?

 

I never quite understood this one either. In the games I've been working on, I've brought back a variation of the 4th ed Instant Change and made it a Talent. 

[Chris Goodwin]

Points lost to Power Destruction were specified as coming back at the same rate as BODY, and it was further specified that Regeneration helped them come back at Regeneration's improved rate. 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

it was further specified that Regeneration helped them come back at Regeneration's improved rate. 

 

That I did not know, made regen pretty powerful

[Hugh Neilson]

On 5/20/2023 at 8:59 AM, greypaladin_01 said:

I agree.  While there probably is an argument that could be made the some things are over/under priced for their effect per edition, I think that many of the changes stem from some type of obsessive need to codify everything. No matter how minor.

The best example I can think of was how Instant Change was just it's own thing up through 4th Edition costing 5/10 points depending on just how much you could alter your clothing.   However starting in 5th edition it was removed and instead turned into something like Transform: 1d6 (a dozen modifiers and advantages/limitations)  that made the cost result to something like 6/12.    Was there REALLY a need to complicate things to that level and was the 1-2 point increase that vital to 'balance'?

 

I think this is also partly an outgrowth of moving from "game" to "system".  How valuable is such an ability in an espionage game? Wouldn't it be nice if the scruffy fantasy game adventurer could instantly have clothing appropriate for the Royal Court, fit in with the townsfolk or duck around a corner and suddenly be dressed like the city watch?

 

This seems like the type of ability best suited to be a Talent in a specific genre.  That is likely the way to handle many genre tropes.

[greypaladin_01]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I think this is also partly an outgrowth of moving from "game" to "system".  How valuable is such an ability in an espionage game? Wouldn't it be nice if the scruffy fantasy game adventurer could instantly have clothing appropriate for the Royal Court, fit in with the townsfolk or duck around a corner and suddenly be dressed like the city watch?

 

This seems like the type of ability best suited to be a Talent in a specific genre.  That is likely the way to handle many genre tropes.

 

I agree 100% that not every Talent / Skill / Perk / Power is appropriate for every genre, at least not without major GM/Player coordination.  But that does not mean that codifying everything, very clunkily often, makes things any better.  HERO has fully committed to the Toolkit approach for the bulk of it's history now, but has lost much of it's ease-of-use in the process.   My Instant Change example above, how Transform was altered from a single power into Linked Drain/Aid and if I pulled my books out I could probably find dozens more examples.   Most of these changes took simple and straightforward ideas and changed them in to huge word blocks of bloated mess that will make any player's eyes glaze over trying to parse.

 

I mean if you look at Espionage fiction, they do have 'quick-change' outfits and who is to say there is not Fantasy Fashion magics or Hats of Disguise, but those are just a case of finding the right special effects to fit the situation.

 

The toolkits already have places that point out how certain abilities may not be appropriate to all genres, I think mostly in skill/talent/perks sections, but they could have just as easily left something like Instant Change alone and given it a similar warning.   

 

I mean all of us like having options and detail on the characters but the bloat of the game is extremely visible when you compare the two Strike Force books.   The original (3e) pretty much every character sheet takes up less than one page, allowing you to look over the character in a glance.   The updated version (6e) now characters are taking 2-3 pages and are much harder to interpret at a quick glance.    This is most obviously apparent when looking at the "Start of Career" sheets for characters that are in both books.

[Doc Democracy]

19 hours ago, greypaladin_01 said:

I agree 100% that not every Talent / Skill / Perk / Power is appropriate for every genre, at least not without major GM/Player coordination.  But that does not mean that codifying everything, very clunkily often, makes things any better.  HERO has fully committed to the Toolkit approach for the bulk of it's history now, but has lost much of it's ease-of-use in the process.   My Instant Change example above, how Transform was altered from a single power into Linked Drain/Aid and if I pulled my books out I could probably find dozens more examples.

 

See, that is where I think Complete books should diverge from the toolkit books.

 

Instant change should be a talent presented as a "thing" in Champions.  Pay the cost, here us what it does, in text, not gamespeak.  Each genre should gave a chunk of things like that which are just given a cost and an explanation in the rulebook.  There can be an annex showing how it was put together (for the toolkit-interested).

 

Doc

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Doc Democracy
changing "relent" to "talent" and "dies" to "does" :-/

[greypaladin_01]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

See, that is where I think Complete books should diverge from the toolkit books.

 

Instant change should be a relent presented as a "thing" in Champions.  Pay the cost, here us what it dies, in text, not gamespeak.  Each genre should gave a chunk of things like that which are just given a cost and an explanation in the rulebook.  There can be an annex showing how it was put together (for the toolkit-interested).

 

Doc

 

 

I agree, it feels like a major missed opportunity for the Complete line.  They could have made "games" again that refer to the toolkit for more advanced play.

[Duke Bushido]

On 5/20/2023 at 10:59 AM, greypaladin_01 said:

The best example I can think of was how Instant Change was just it's own thing up through 4th Edition costing 5/10 points depending on just how much you could alter your clothing.   However starting in 5th edition it was removed and instead turned into something like Transform: 1d6 (a dozen modifiers and advantages/limitations)  that made the cost result to something like 6/12.    Was there REALLY a need to complicate things to that level and was the 1-2 point increase that vital to 'balance'?

 

 

 

You left out the part where in order to use this, you have to actually violate the Transform rule into which it was unnecessarily shoved:

 

Transform cannot be used on self.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, greypaladin_01 said:

how Transfer was altered from a single power into Linked Drain/Aid and if I pulled my books out I could probably find dozens more examples.

 

Fixed that to Transfer.

 

The issues with Transfer started in prior editions.  A Transfer is a Drain with a linked Aid, self only, costs END.  When we started getting rulings like the Drain part would fail if the Aid part was maxed out, or the Drain had to be divided among the targets within an AoE rather than affecting them all, or needing to buy delayed recovery or expanded effect twice if you wanted it to affect both parts...well, let's just say my thinking was not complimentary.

 

Break them into their two components and they work fine again.

 

That's not to say we could not make a baseline Transfer that combines the two with neither having modifiers, for a simpler purchase option, but it should not be markedly more expensive to do the same thing with Transfer as with a Linked Aid and Drain.