What don't you like

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

IMO, and just IMO, fatigue or endurance plays an issue in the comics very rarely. A typical superhero fight never worries about tiring or issues such as running out of webbing and the like (to throw in charges.)

 

Once in a great while, as part of the story, a superhero comic will run a scene where fatigue is an issue. The battle will be unusually long or will be a series of battles and the THEME of the story will be the fatigue or the running out of web juice/bullets. The THREAT or CHALLENGE will be to last thru the challenge and still be victotious.

 

SNIP SNIP SNIP

 

I think a much more reflective of comics and user-friendly approach is the following...

 

1. under normal scenarios, end is not tracked.

2. for powers specifically listed as tiring or stressful, reflect those powers AS DIFFERENT FROM MOST by applying a side effects or a activation roll limitation. this can also be used for "pushing powers too far".

3. for specifically themed scenarios, which focus on fatigue/loss-of-expendable-resources as a threat, have specific scenario rules to cover those cases. It could be as simple as "you have already fought three battles this afternoon and are tired, apply this side effect (or act roll or burnout roll) to your power... (This does not have to be ad hoc and can be as standardized as you want.)

 

This limits the "must pay attention to fatigue" to the few scenarios where it is important and leaves all that bookkeeping off of all the scenarios where it isn't.

 

This makes it not a hassle when its not important and makes it stand out and highlight even more when it is an issue.

 

Thats the "focus on what matters" part i was trying to get across. [/b]

 

To play Devil's Advocate (and because it will the the 100th reply to this thread), the hero only gets Stunned or Knocked Out when the writer so chooses. Generally, a KO occurs when the challenge will be "What does the hero do to track down his escaped adversary", "how does our hero prevail against a foe who defeated him once" or "how does our hero escape capture/the deathtrap/revelation of his secret ID".

 

This makes a case for ignoring STUN except when one of these themes is in place (I'd add your "endurance session" theme as well - can they tough it out and prevail).

 

Killing a character is an even rarer occurence, and generally done by the writer for a reason, so tracking BOD also seems unimportant except where "death of a hero" is a theme of the story (whether that be the results of his death, his heroism and self-sacrifice, or his creativity in avoiding getting killed).

 

In fiction, both characters and plot are controlled by a single person - the writer. He decides when setbacks occur - there is no need for a system to evaluate whether a setback occurs, or how serious it is. He decides whether the hero succeeds or fails, and to what degree.

 

In games, there is conflict between the characters and the environment. The writer no longer controls the characters. As such, an unbiased mechanism for measuring the impact of setbacks, and ultimate success or failure, is needed. The END mechanism is part of that mechanic in Hero.

 

This isn't to say the game would be eliminated if we ignored END. STUN, BOD and action rolls still exist, and provide a mechanic for determining success and failure. But, in my opinion, the game is diminished when we remove a core rule like END. This removes one mechanic which is determinative of success or failure in the game.

 

I don't see your solution as realy viable, as it requires providing the characters information they would not have. "Uh oh - I have to track END this time. I better be careful how I spend my END." isn't a likely thought balloon from Spider Man as he (unknowingly) starts to run the gauntlet of several of his deadliest enemies.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Generally, a KO occurs when the challenge will be "What does the hero do to track down his escaped adversary", "how does our hero prevail against a foe who defeated him once" or "how does our hero escape capture/the deathtrap/revelation of his secret ID".

 

This makes a case for ignoring STUN except when one of these themes is in place (I'd add your "endurance session" theme as well - can they tough it out and prevail).

 

Killing a character is an even rarer occurence,

The thing is, whenever you have a fight scene, the goal is typically to Ko the bad guy or maybe to kill the hero. A fight scene IS a scene where the theme is stun, KO, kill to varying degrees. These are not RARE at all. So it makes sense for these to be tracked in those not rare at all scenes.

 

fatigueing the enemy is however, almost never the objective of a fight scene and scenarios where fatigue is an issue will be rare. Thats why endurance is not beneficial to track in all those scenes where it wont play a significant role, where its not the focus.

 

That said, in the spirit of devils advocate since i KNOW you understood that difference...

 

I currently run a supers game where we dont track stun/hit points and the like, and it seems to work fine. So the argument can definitely be made for running a supers game without tracking stun point by point as a necessity being well within the realm of playability.

 

So, if you really really want to discuss the merits and plausibility of replacing the "stun and body DND-like countdown" with a less bookkeeping more dynamic system, i am all for it. If you intended this as a reductio ad absurdum extraploation, you missed the mark. :-)

 

imagine, taking "damage from attack after defenses" and a check based on a CON ROLL to determine a variety of comicy possibilities such as "knocked off balance", "stunned", "rattled and lose half action", "bashed and take -3 to actions", "Knocked out for a 1-6 segments", and so forth all the way to "knocked out cold" or "defense lowered" and "con lowered".

 

it can work...HERO's DND-style wall of hit points is not the only way to represent comic book fights and damage.

 

Really!

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In games, there is conflict between the characters and the environment. The writer no longer controls the characters. As such, an unbiased mechanism for measuring the impact of setbacks, and ultimate success or failure, is needed. The END mechanism is part of that mechanic in Hero.

While the need for a mechanic exists... some could argue that but i wont... the degree of detail the mechanic needs is up for grabs. i AM NOT proposing removing the mechanic entirely, merely switching it from one which takes time when it doesn't matter to one which takes time when it matters.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This isn't to say the game would be eliminated if we ignored END. STUN, BOD and action rolls still exist, and provide a mechanic for determining success and failure. But, in my opinion, the game is diminished when we remove a core rule like END. This removes one mechanic which is determinative of success or failure in the game.

Removing a mechanic that is often just excess paperwork and replacing it with one more focused on results is not diminishing the game at all, IMO.

 

As it stands now, the end system in addition to creating extra bookkeeping for no benefit in most scenarios, also allows for a number of point chisels which are not beneficial for game balance.

 

To me the cost far outweighs the gain.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't see your solution as realy viable, as it requires providing the characters information they would not have. "Uh oh - I have to track END this time. I better be careful how I spend my END." isn't a likely thought balloon from Spider Man as he (unknowingly) starts to run the gauntlet of several of his deadliest enemies.

 

Who said anything about requiring them to track end and forewarning them about the theme?

 

I didn't.

 

Do i have to build a system in order for you to get the idea?

 

OK...

For powers which take the "tiring" limitation or powers which are pushed, a predefined side effect occurs. (there could obviously be several levels each getting worse.) There could even be a variety of effects but the most obvious would be a drain vs the character's physical stats and perhaps powers. Say hypothetically a 1d6 drain vs str, dex, con, bod and the power used recovering 1 pt each per half hour as a baseline per level of effect.

That covers the basic pushing powers and tiring powers.

In scenarios where the Gm decides "the character is fatigued" (this can be scenario design "you have not slept in three days", "you have been chasing this jet for several hours") or by a counter "you have now engaged in more turns of super powered combat than your con score without lengthy rest so you are now fatigued"" or whatever qualifier the Gm needs) then the effects as described above start occuring even under normal power use and doubly so if a tiring power or a pushed power is used.

So now, under the above system, there is no tracking endurance until the character is fatigued. A vague warning of "yuou are getting tired" along the way can clue the player in that his guy needs rest and that he risks these bad effects if he continues.

 

Bookkeeping for normal power use in normal scenarios is reduced drastically.

 

Effect when the fatigue issue matters (pushing, specific tiring powers, and after extended efforts) is emphasized and even more pronounced.

 

Finally, several point cheeses are made more dififcult. With rapid recovery as is common in hero, its chlid's play to get major price reduction on a power by ramping up its end cost. if this is a frequently non-combat used power, like say healing or esp or extra dimensional travel and the like, this end will be used then recovered in a matter of seconds to a few minutes. A lot of savings for little dramatic impact.

 

On the other hand, if the effect is more persistent, like the lengthier drain i mention above, those cheeses will be more of a problem since the effects of even one normal 1d6 will last for an hour or more. Your "tiring" mind scan might affect your ability to stop the gang robbing the bank an hour from now.

 

Again, notice the theme... scope and focus...

 

For all the fight scenes where endurance wont play a noticeable role... no bookkeeping.

For all those scenes where endurance/fatigue is an issue, it plays a significant role.

 

More focused, better scope, overall less bookkeeping.

 

Whats not to like?

 

:-)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

The thing is, whenever you have a fight scene, the goal is typically to Ko the bad guy or maybe to kill the hero. A fight scene IS a scene where the theme is stun, KO, kill to varying degrees.

 

fatigueing the enemy is however, almost never the objective of a fight scene and scenarios where fatigue is an issue will be rare. Thats why endurance is not beneficial to track in all those scenes where it wont play a significant role, where its not the focus.

 

Exhausting the enemy is a common means opf facilitating taking him down. Boxers certainly engage in this. It's seen in comics fairly commonly ("He's more powerful than me. I';ll have to wear him down.").

 

Originally posted by tesuji

I currently run a supers game where we dont track stun/hit points and the like, and it seems to work fine. So the argument can definitely be made for running a supers game without tracking stun point by point as a necessity being well within the realm of playability.

 

It certainly can work fine. I haven't played it, but Muta ts and Masterminds uses a system much like you describe elsewhere by applying a "damage save" rather than stun points. Now we are describing a different system for the mechanic, rather than the elimination of the mechanic. It still has bookkeeping - IIRC your saves are penalized for the number of saves made by a fixed margin.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

it can work...HERO's DND-style wall of hit points is not the only way to represent comic book fights and damage.

 

Rolling stats and powers can also work. How many significant changes can be made to the base mechanics without changing the game from Hero to something else? Perhaps something else that is of similar quality, or even superior qualify (depending on your point of view), but still something else.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

While the need for a mechanic exists... some could argue that but i wont... the degree of detail the mechanic needs is up for grabs. i AM NOT proposing removing the mechanic entirely, merely switching it from one which takes time when it doesn't matter to one which takes time when it matters.

 

There I misread you - my read of the proposal was "get rid of END" or "ignore END in most situations", not "replace it with something else"

 

Originally posted by tesuji

For all the fight scenes where endurance wont play a noticeable role... no bookkeeping.

For all those scenes where endurance/fatigue is an issue, it plays a significant role.

 

Your system notes "a number of turns equal to CON". If you include such a mechanic, turns fighting (and, presumably, doing other strenuous tasks over lengthy periods) must be tracked, so we still have bookkeeping. If not, you simply arbitrarily decide when fatigue sets in, which may be less than pleasing to some players and is open for unfairness.

 

You can eliminate any mechanical rule and replace it with some alternative mechanic. That's called "building a new game". You can replace mechnics with arbitrary decisionmaking. We've all played games where they're all eliminated. Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, what have you All gaming does is add an objective mechanic for determining success and failure. Any mechanic you use can work with the right group. It can also be manipulated in the right circumstances.

 

Also, pulling out one mechanic can create a need for others. You've already discussed the need for powers which are exceptionally draining. Now you need to find an appropriate balance for limitations, determine the various gradations of "draining", etc. You also need a construct for characters who cannot be exhausted (some ad-on to life support, maybe?) and a construct for characters who can make others fatigued with a power ("Ray of Fatigue"). Or you deny the existence of such constructs in your game - that option always exists.

 

At the end of the day, we'll all use the system we, and our groups, most enjoy. But, for me, the purpose of playing an existing system, rather than my own homebrew rules, is that someone else did all the playtesting for me, and I can easily refer players to the Book of Rules, which they can purchase should they wish. That's not to say I don't tweak a few rules, but these are not the core mechanics of the game. If I want to change the core mechanics, I'll find a different system to play. I want to play the game, not design it. YMMV

 

By the way, the easy fix to abuse of "10xEND" on my "only used outside combat power" is application of the long term END rules. Within the existing structure, of course.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Exhausting the enemy is a common means opf facilitating taking him down. Boxers certainly engage in this. It's seen in comics fairly commonly ("He's more powerful than me. I';ll have to wear him down.").

Haven't read comcs in quite a while, so it could have changed, but the fights where "wear him out" was the significant element vs the ones where it wasn't were largely more common... maybe ten or twenty to one.

 

From more recent comicish experience, watching Justice league thru something like two seasons, i recall endurance coming up once, when GL was stranded in the past.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

It still has bookkeeping - IIRC your saves are penalized for the number of saves made by a fixed margin.

Yes but thats significantly less bookkeeping.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Rolling stats and powers can also work. How many significant changes can be made to the base mechanics without changing the game from Hero to something else?

Uhh... OK so what does that matter? At some point are you rewquired by HERo tradition to change the cover of your book? Are HERo mechanics now "better" by dint of being HERO as opposed to how they work so that moving away from them lessens them?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Perhaps something else that is of similar quality, or even superior qualify (depending on your point of view), but still something else.

OK, so what? Does being able to say "i play hero straight" earn you a cookie?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

There I misread you - my read of the proposal was "get rid of END" or "ignore END in most situations", not "replace it with something else"

As stated from the get go, remove it from those situations where it doesn't matter and use it when it does.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Your system notes "a number of turns equal to CON". If you include such a mechanic, turns fighting (and, presumably, doing other strenuous tasks over lengthy periods) must be tracked, so we still have bookkeeping. If not, you simply arbitrarily decide when fatigue sets in, which may be less than pleasing to some players and is open for unfairness.

OK but tracking turns fighting means noting a number at the end of a combat whereas tracking end means checking power use and action and recovery and all that at the end of every phase and end of turn (recovery.)

 

I am talking about reducing the bookkeeping drastically for those scenarios where it is not used.

 

I know that did not escape you.

 

Are you still doing the devils advocate, offering up comments and complaints you dont support just for the sake of it, or did you really miss the decrease in bookkeeping?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You can eliminate any mechanical rule and replace it with some alternative mechanic. That's called "building a new game".

So changing any hero mechanic isn't done in hero? use it as is or play another game?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Also, pulling out one mechanic can create a need for others. You've already discussed the need for powers which are exceptionally draining. Now you need to find an appropriate balance for limitations, determine the various gradations of "draining", etc. You also need a construct for characters who cannot be exhausted (some ad-on to life support, maybe?) and a construct for characters who can make others fatigued with a power ("Ray of Fatigue"). Or you deny the existence of such constructs in your game - that option always exists.

So...

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

At the end of the day, we'll all use the system we, and our groups, most enjoy. But, for me, the purpose of playing an existing system, rather than my own homebrew rules, is that someone else did all the playtesting for me, and I can easily refer players to the Book of Rules, which they can purchase should they wish. That's not to say I don't tweak a few rules, but these are not the core mechanics of the game. If I want to change the core mechanics, I'll find a different system to play. I want to play the game, not design it. YMMV

So you seem to not agree with the options in hero for ignoring end and such as being hero?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

By the way, the easy fix to abuse of "10xEND" on my "only used outside combat power" is application of the long term END rules. Within the existing structure, of course.

 

if you apply lte you add even more bookkeeping to every combat turn for every character, in order to counter an out of combat abuse.

 

you and i seem to see this exactly opposite.

 

which is of course, fine.

 

I just see hero as a little more durable i think, than most, and believe it can survie the options presents as suggestion in its own rulebook.

[dstarfire]

sidetracked

 

If you want to argue the value of the end system, start a thread for that. Or, better yet, take it to a private forum, since it seems to be just 3-4 people arguing about it. This is supposed to be what features of hero we find most annoying.

 

I'll lead the way by mentioning some more of my pet peeves. The thing that bugs me most about hero is the way it seems to be designed for munckins and power gamers. Almost all the powers have annoying limitations built in just to stop people from pulling cheap tricks. The system is balanced for mechanics, but seriously screwed up for thematic balance.

 

Powers should have an opposite/inverse that costs functions identically to it's counterpart and for the same cost but in reverse. While this wouldn't make sense for a lot of powers, it would for most. In the few cases where hero has a counterpart for a power it always has a totally different cost and mechanic. It's almost always cheaper to hurt somebody (or their stats/powers) than it is to heal or even increase them.

[gewing]

Inherent I like, but I seem to be one of the only people who even thinks of using it...

 

Regen is now, imo VERY much a klunker.

 

Weapons writeups I have ranted about too many times.

 

New Shapeshift is a lot more expensive and complicated.

 

I dislike being told "no zero end powers in frameworks" because that means that for instance a character who is a hardshell cyborg has his density increase and armor outside his elemental control,

 

 

I have been thinking about house rules of Strength costs 2 points, Ego costs 1 in most games, and hit locations are always used.

Ego would not always be 1 point, I have a personal problem with mentallists, few games will be likely to have them. Mind flayers all got a nasty virus and DIed.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Monolith

First off, I don't like exceptions to rules, so anything purchased as an exception (regen, etc) doesn't make sense to me.

 

Second, can they make adding damage any more complicated? I've been playing 5E since it came out and I still don't completely understand all the rules for Advantages on STR, or on HTH Attacks, or on Martial Arts. One rule, one way should be the slogan here.

 

Third, mental powers and the break out roll. I also hate the fact that everyone always talks about taking Cumulative on Mental Powers to make it more powerful. Cumulate should be for certain SFX, not to make a power useful.

 

Fourth, damage shields for many reasons, such as HKA getting to take the NO STR ADDs Lim but RKA not getting to take the No Range Lim. I also think that Continuous needs to be redefined for Damage Shields, as there is a difference between the attack staying on and one which keeps attack someone after they have been hit with it.

 

Fifth, megascale because the leaps for Advantages are too great.

 

Sixth, I hate the fact that there are not more examples for Perks with differing costs such as Access, or Computer Link, or Membership.

 

Seventh, I don't care for the inherent Advantage, mostly because it's seldom taken. How many creatures have Nightvision Inherent? I mean it's their eyes, it's not something you can dispel. If you're not going to enforce the use of Advantages then you might as well not have them.

 

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[gewing]

There are only 2 issues I have with movement powers that come to mind...

 

the old RUnning with clinging versus flight only on surfaces and

What happens if I fly under water?

 

no books around, forgot to bring them tonight.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

I really don't like the idea of trying to combine all the powers that do somewhat related things into one power. It's actually simpler to have Flight, Running, Swimming, etc, and to have EB, RKAs, etc, seperate. I'm still not very happy about what was done with Regeneration. It was easier to have a seperate power than to have to constuct it out of another power with a giant wad of advantages and limitations.

 

I think the balance between having too many specific powers and trying to shove everything into a handful of powers is just about right where it is.

[gewing]

I agree with you pretty much across the board. I forgot to post my opinion on Damage Shield. It sucks points even faster now. I guess it is a good thing I don't usually use it.

 

Originally posted by Von D-Man

Regeneration should be a separate power and keep the adders. Making it an adjunct of Healing didn't actually change the power. It just made it more mechanically clunky than it was before.

 

Megascale is nice, cheap, and clunky. You have to purchase a power twice if you want to use it both on a local and mega scale (unless you purchase variable advantage, but then, maybe the only advantage you wanted was megascale). Its also toooooo cheap in many cases.

 

Damage Shield costs. The power (unless you do some exotic dinking) simply isn't effective enough to warrant the huge modifier costs.

 

Transport Familiarity for recreational vehicles is too expensive if you have a James Bond type character. There should be2 point categories for "Snow" "Water" and "Air."

 

Network Administration should be under Systems Operation instead of Computer Programming. I know plenty of network admins who can't write code (or just do web dev stuff).

 

Autofire Skills: 20 Points?! Ug.

 

Two Weapon Fighting - with sweep, rapid fire, and PSLs - does it need to exist?

 

Still - Make Mine Hero!

[TAROT]

One more thing:

 

The book uses metres for distance, and kg for mass, and then Fahrenheit for temperature?

[lemming]

Originally posted by TAROT

One more thing:

 

The book uses metres for distance, and kg for mass, and then Fahrenheit for temperature?

Oh come on, we throw you a few metric bones and then you complain about temperature!?

[TrickstaPriest]

Hmm... this is a fairly interesting thread, and I like how people have managed to discuss things fairly well without having a total breakdown.

 

[edit]

I have a pet peeve I noticed no one bring up at all. AVLD, specifically for "more common defenses." Isn't that a disadvantage? I mean, +3/4 is a lot of extra points for something that makes a power essentially weaker anyway, and that's before you look at needing a +1 addition for doing BODY. This makes a big difference to me, since I do a LOT of Advantages/Limitations based on unusual SFX. Yes, it means I tend to get downright prohibitive APs on some powers, because they tend to be stacked with quite a few advantages and disadvantages. Then again, I rather regularly come up with some downright bizarre powers. Still, to have a sonic attack that does "Dex Drain" have its dice nearly halved for using Flash Defense instead of Power Defense is rather annoying. I still need to decide what kind of an Advantage is "Heals as BODY". This is important, because it brings up another problem I have below (Transformations). Now, there is still going too far for this... like, requiring electrical attacks to have "Area when Underwater", but I generally just handle it with the "average circumstances effect." If your average someone gets hit with a lightning bolt, they are going to have a HELL of a time walking around or fighting for a bit and pity anything in their utility belt...

 

I agree Power Defense is odd, but I find requiring "Only vs" a good way of handling that. All it really needs is a few lines outlining and recommending that. Of course, I find a lot of "scope problems" with powers can be handled by simply tacking on a Limitations. I generally require appropriate Advantages and Limitations for powers SFX (unless I deem the advantage/limitation too minor, in which case it's purely SFX). After all, isn't the reason WHY you take those because of the SFX? Yes, you get points back, but even if you give it a -1 limitation it's functionality might actually be reduced quite a bit more than that.

 

Transformations I'm very leery on, even for physical effects. Why? Because I find that, unless it's a Major Transformation (or maybe Cosmetic), I find handling it very clunky. If I want a character that can blow out someone's eardrums and unbalance them, I could use a Major Transformation with Partial to represent a loss of Dexterity (or at least a destabilization of their body) with each dizzying blast of the attack... or I could use a Dex Drain, which feels better to me because that's basically what the power does anyway. (Either way, I'd probably also have a small Linked STUN only AVLD.) However, Transformations are the only way of causing lasting or long term effects, which is kind of annoying to me. It might make sense on occasion for game balance purposes, but for quite a few effects I practically beg for a "Medium Transform"... something better than the effects of a Minor Transform, less than a Major... and even then that's still jumping onto the Transform bandwagon. It's comfy there, but it's occasionally annoying. I could apply the"increased time to heal", but that doesn't always make sense, especially for things that essentially "Heal as BODY."

 

STR, and the various rules for it. It seems fairly cheap, but I understand why they don't want people to easily buy Advantages on it. However, if I want a character who can throw around people while Desolid, it becomes a real pain to buy Affects Desolid on each of their martial arts attacks. At that point it becomes easier (and probably cheaper) to make a Martial Arts Multipower... but it doesn't have lots of the useful little things that martial arts have (like building in OCV & DCV bonuses to the attack, Move Throughs, etc). This does make a big difference on some of my designs, I have quite a few powers that I wish I could get bonuses like these on, and Skill Levels don't work for all the different things for it.

 

The sheer complexity of the character sheets. Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons I like HERO a lot is because I can FINALLY represent some of the freaky abilities I come up with fairly well. (Yay me! Dee has a character sheet now!) However, those powers can look really, really nasty when written down. A handy solution I've thought of is simply to have a seperate write up for "play", and a bookkeeping sheet for the math. Just have a few important notes down (like, END use, the Power's AP, and what I often put down (AP total per die (for Drains/Suppresses)), and then some very short notes on effect. I don't include much other numbers, like the sizes of advantages and stuff, just a quick summary. Still, if you don't do this you can be getting things really ugly looking.

 

The difference between AP and Base Cost. This is notable, because like I said I often get lots of Advantages and Limitations on powers. This means I tend to regularly need 1/2 END to have the power not having a prohibitive cost, and AP caps tend to rather hurt. This becomes notable when you are buying a Multipower, since any Advantages applied to the Multipower as a whole are applied to the AP of the pool, not the Base Cost. This makes a big, big difference to me. Because of this, I generally allow people to take "Variable Limitation" on the Multipower's pool if the powers in the pool all have at least the appropriate amount of Limitations on them, to represent the low Real Cost the powers would have. Thus, if all the powers have at least -1 total Limitations, the Multipower pool gets a -1/2 Variable Limitation. This also becomes a bit annoying when I want to build a power that has two or three "modes"... or essentially two or three different (maybe slightly different) Limitations or Advantages. The only way to represent this is in a Multipower (or Variable Advantage/Limitation, which could be nearly ~anything~, not the direction I wanted to go). This means that I generally get quite a few tiny Multipower pools, and then end up paying a prohibitive pool cost (since the AP of the powers is so high) even after Variable Limitation is applied.

 

I'm a little annoyed at the lack of ways of doing some specific things. It doesn't seem to allow some things (I completely understand why, game balance wise), but sometimes I need to use these. What makes it more balanced? Appropriate Limitations. If I need someone to throw fireballs as a 0 Phase action, I need someone to throw fireballs as a 0 Phase action. If I want an NPC to not Bleed, I want them to not bleed. I tend to make NPCs based on the overall effects of the powers, NOT their total character points or AP points. I understand why sometimes people need a "GM shield" or a GM needs a "Player shield", but if you have abusive GMs or powergamer players, there are better ways to handle it. Even having a "GM only or extremely special circumstances" (or, simply the "STOP") stamp on some super-powerful Advantages would be helpful. I do think that every power should have some way of countering it or some special "thing" it doesn't work against. If it doesn't, maybe you need to look at the powers SFX more. However, sometimes these might not be the methods used in the abilities rules.

 

For having characters that have outright immunities to things (as rare as that is, if it is immune by definition...), I generally use Desolid with "Only vs". The handy thing is that it generally suggests that you don't need to get that prohibitive +2 advantage for still being able to hurt people, but if you want to be "invincible vs almost everything" you need to pay for your ability to kick butt back (even if the advantage is... a _little_ steep). But, this creates the problem of having "Affects Desolid" powers still hurt them. The other problem is dealing with Desolid vs. powers that normally "Affect Desolid". Like... Flares and Mental Assaults (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have my book on me). If Dee is an AI, no amount of Psychic Illusions or Mental Assaults is going to make him twitch. Menton can try and command him until he's blue in the face, but it's not going to help much. Of course, someone who can control circuitry at a distance might find their "Mental Assaults" work quite well. Except for the "Affects Desolid" and the occasional powers that automatically do so, Desolid is a nice way of representing Immunities (or groups of Immunities) to things since it is a defense that's not based on rules, but on SFX (That is, it is a defense against just about every power, except for a few SFX you choose. Damage Reduction only affects ~damage~). The only hole is the problem with "Affects Desolid" and powers that do that naturally. I guess maybe allowing "Hardened" on Desolid might bypass this...

 

From what I hear, some don't like counting END. I find that fairly understandable, I sometimes get very hairy bookkeeping in combat, and if it doesn't _seem_ to be a big factor in fights (or at least that fight) it makes sense to ignore it or find another way of using it. It can really, really slow down fights. Just recently I had a fight that lasted several sessions long (the players had a lot of fun, because of the way I handled the fight, but still...). I actually like the END system, especially when it starts hitting your STUN. It's a simple and useful way of letting characters push themselves and showing the effects of exhaustion. I find it especially useful in low-scale fights, like swordfights. Using END for STR and Movement makes a lot of sense... if you have someone using all their STR (even to parry) consistently, they are going to tire out. If you have a martial artist who merely sidesteps attacks and occasionally throws the person, he's not going to tire out at all. If you have someone who's leaping around like a monkey to avoid getting hit, he's eventually going to wear out too. A very dangerous enemy for small-scale Martial Artist characters who emphasize speed is an animate suit of armor. Heavy defense, so their light, stinging attacks aren't going to hurt him much, probably has uses 0 END on STR and Movement, and the poor martial artist will probably be diving and dodging up a storm to avoid getting cleaved, especially if it has an axe. Oh, it's certainly easy to dodge, at least at first... (poor Edward. )

 

So, I find END works fairly well at the small scales, but I tend to simply allow people to buy Uses 1/2 or 0 END (and put it in some/most Power Frameworks) for higher up campaigns... unless I really want to keep track of it.

 

 

I really like the HERO system overall. I like how it handles BODY, Stun, and END seperately (and the relationships inbetween), even if I may alter these roles (and amounts) depending on the setting. I also like how it lets me pretty much come up with whatever crazy-assed power I need, even if the costs might be a little... strange. I just feel that every system is going to need some tailoring to suit how you feel about it, even if you risk changing the balance of the game. That's why I come in and occasionally ask annoying questions on how much "this Advantage" or "that Limitation" sounds like.

[AnotherSkip]

Damage Shield and Regeneration.

 

With Damage Shield just exactly how often do you think I'm gona get hit? Not enough to be worth +2 in advantages. And with a 40% of Ap max for Def max then you are talking about 33% of Max Damage vs 40%. In a straight one on one fight it's going to do no good.

 

Regen just too clunky for Hulk, HULK SMASH!!!!

 

and what is with Ressurection being a SFX for Summon. Ya mean I gotta build a separate summon fer each individual I wanna raise from the dead? *starts troutsmaking*

 

now then a transform has some cool abilites built into it (perhaps a use for the Transform Spirit class to make it a suitable place for a spirit to inhabit

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by TAROT

One more thing:

 

The book uses metres for distance, and kg for mass, and then Fahrenheit for temperature?

 

Actually, I seem to recall many scientists prefer F because the larger scale means its more granular or something I'm sure they actually use the F equivalent of Kelvin (with 0 at absolute zero)...

[DrFurious]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Actually, I seem to recall many scientists prefer F because the larger scale means its more granular or something I'm sure they actually use the F equivalent of Kelvin (with 0 at absolute zero)...

 

That was before they invented fractions