Some suggestions for FRED revised.

[Yamo]

1. Please clean up the rule for adding damage to Advantaged attacks. Dear Lord, that section in FREd makes my poor brain bleed. Sidekick did it much better.

 

2. Please relax the restrictions on the automaton Powers. A stop sign is fine, but arbitrarily restricting them to non-PCs makes it really, really hard to build certain characters (like intelligent robots, golems, etc).

 

Thanks.

[Steve Long]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Since this isn't a company question, I've moved it.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Steve, just to be clear on this:

 

Are you looking for any more input from fans at this point regarding 5ER?

[Agent X]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

I hope he is.

[Steve Long]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Are you looking for any more input from fans at this point regarding 5ER?

 

I'm certainly willing to listen to it, but I'm not really actively soliciting it -- if for no other reason than I have a lot of other things to work on before 5ER.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

I only have two "wish-list" items for 5ER that might be not considered otherwise, the reason being that both are from Digital Hero: Dave Mattingly's new Area Of Effect shapes from DH#10, and my expansion of Activation Rolls (in a sidebar for the TDSF article).

[Snarf]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

This is a very minor issue, but it'd be great if there was an official way to make a ranged normal damage attack where strength adds to damage. According to the FAQ, the best rules legal way to do this is to buy a big energy blast and say the special effect is using stregth. Maybe there could be a power specific advantage for Hand Attack or something.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

This is a very minor issue' date=' but it'd be great if there was an official way to make a ranged normal damage attack where strength adds to damage. According to the FAQ, the best rules legal way to do this is to buy a big energy blast and say the special effect is using stregth. Maybe there could be a power specific advantage for Hand Attack or something.[/quote']

 

I'd just call it +1/2. An RKA costs 15 points per die. Make it No Range and it costs 10 points per die. Add "STR Adds" and it's an HKA which costs 15 points per die. Therefore, "STR Adds" must be a +1/2 advantage.

 

The catch being, of course, that whether it's worth it depends on your STR. I'd almost rather see HKA reduced to 10 points per die and not have STR add at all.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

If it were possible, I think it would help to include a separate alphabetical index of the various Power Modifiers in 5E, including the ones listed under the specific Powers they apply to, or as subsets of a particular Modifier - similar to the "Redwulfe Indices" in Free Stuff. This would be especially helpful to newbies just getting into the system; the 5E general Index is a marvel, but if you don't know the name of what you're looking for it doesn't help much in finding it. Heck, I've been playing this game twenty years and even I've had to scrounge around to find some of the changed things.

[Agemegos]

Weapon and carry sizes

 

I've said this before, and I don't want to nag, but in case my suggestion has been forgotten I'll repeat it here where it will readily be found.

 

I liked the rules that were in Justice, Inc for the sizes of weapons and the hiding-places about a person, and for how well-hidden a given object in a given carry was. I think they would have some usefulness in almost any type of heroic campaign. I'd like to see them re-appear in core Hero System.

[Simon]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

I'll chime in on this one.....but first, a caveat:

 

These are merely my own gripes with the system. I think that, overall, the system is fantastic....these are just the things that irk me a bit, and they likely don't bother others. In short, take this for what it is: one person's opinion.

 

 

1. Requires Skill Roll. This is badly broken when you start looking at the limits for Requires 2 Skill Rolls and in other areas. To give some examples:

• RSR with a Skill is a -1/2. RSR with a Background Skill is -1/4. The difference in cost between a Skill and a Background Skill is 1 point. The difference between a -1/4 and a -1/2 is 2 for every 15 points in the Power. That's unbalanced. The two should be the same....making them different is trying to be "fine grained" without any purpose and with a negative effect.
• RSR on a Characteristic follows completely different dynamics from RSR on a Skill (in that the value of RSR on a Characteristic is determined from the Characteristic Roll -- similar to Activation Roll). This should really be one or the other. The argument that the character needs to pay for Skills is moot -- they need to pay to raise their Characteristic as well. In both cases, they get what they pay for - the benefit of the Skill or Characteristic. If you want RSR to act like Activation Roll and base its value off of the ease with which the character can make the roll, then this should be done across the board. If you don't want it that way, then it should be done that way across the board. Consistency is the key.
• Required 2 Rolls is badly broken. I can take RSR with a Skill for -1/2. I can take RSR with a Skill and a CON roll for -1/2. The limits imposed on Requires 2 Rolls need to be looked at and balanced with the rest of the Limitation's rules (once these are adjusted and balanced).

I'll stop there for now.....point is, that RSR is just sort of this hodge-podge of different rules and different mechanics that simply don't balance the way they're worked right now.

 

2. Charges. Yes, charges are immensely useful. They're a wonderful tool and a very necessary Limitation. But the rules for figuring out their value are rediculously complicated. Simplify the Limitation. Drastically. One of the main suggestions that I would have here is to lose the "Charges makes an ability 0-END" rule. If you want the ability to be 0-END, buy Reduced END. That just screws things up and allows for serious point-mongering. They just seem like a hodge-podge of a lot of different rules as it stands now....not entirely sure how to sort it all out.

 

3. Normal Characteristic Maxima. I have never seen the point to this. If a character takes it, they typically don't buy their characteristics above the NCM level. If they do, then they don't buy enough of them to justify the points that they gain for NCM. It's a Disad that does not disadvantage them in any way. The only way that I can see to make this a worthwhile thing is to remove it from the Disadvantage category and just make it a campaign rule. GMs that want to enforce it make all characters take it for 0-points. That's just the way characteristics work in their campaign. The way it stands now, it violates the principle rule of disads: it does not disadvantage the character in any way. Just like a character not buying an Energy Blast is not disadvantaged and cannot get points for this fact.

 

4. It may be worthwhile to revisit the rules for assigning an OCV/DCV penalty to a particular ability. Side Effects is kinda kludgy for this and makes things very ambiguous. Allowing for a "negative Adder" (defined as negative CSLs) would work, given the proper rules to define them....and would open up a new precedent to clean up other areas in the future.

 

I'll leave it at that for now.

 

Again, if none of these is ever adjusted, I still love the system (obviously). These are just the items that have irked me in working on HD....they stand out from the rest.

[Black Rose]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

If it were possible' date=' I think it would help to include a separate alphabetical index of the various Power Modifiers in 5E, including the ones listed under the specific Powers they apply to, or as subsets of a particular Modifier - similar to the "Redwulfe Indices" in Free Stuff. This would be especially helpful to newbies just getting into the system; the 5E general Index is a marvel, but if you don't know the name of what you're looking for it doesn't help much in finding it. Heck, I've been playing this game twenty years and even I've had to scrounge around to find some of the changed things. [/quote']

 

At the risk of coming off as an AOLuser, "Me too!! Me too!!" I love the increased info on stats (and what happens when they are Drained, etc.) the additional info for skills is very good (specifically the "8- means this; 11- means this, etc. etc." - though the spoonfeeding of "if you have a DEX of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, you have a skill roll of 12-" kinda bugged me; but I'm elitist like that.), but the splitting of all the Advantages and Limitations really bugged me. If it had been me (and I know it wasn't ) I would have gone for a listing of Power type-specific Advantages and Limitations in their section, followed by a full listing after the Power listings. Or heck, even a place holder with a "see pg. XX" would have been great. The usefulness of the specific lists was lost when I had to hunt quite so much.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

I think Steve has made it quite clear that there will be no rules changes in 5ER. However, I happen to love rules questions!

 

This is a very minor issue' date=' but it'd be great if there was an official way to make a ranged normal damage attack where strength adds to damage. According to the FAQ, the best rules legal way to do this is to buy a big energy blast and say the special effect is using stregth. Maybe there could be a power specific advantage for Hand Attack or something.[/quote']

 

Think about the possibility of such a modifier. Logically, as Hugh says, it should be +1/2. As long as you stay within the realm of Killing Attacks you're okay. But when you jump to HA you discover a problem. An HA with "Range" will end up costing 5/d6, identical to an EB, only you can add your STR to it. An EB with "Adds STR" would cost half as much more for identical effect. It doesn't balance. The best solution is, in fact, to use EB. In heroic levels games, where character's don't pay points for their equipment anyway, it's perfectly fine to define many weapons as "throwable" where STR above the STR Min will still add to damage.

 

1. Requires Skill Roll. This is badly broken when you start looking at the limits for Requires 2 Skill Rolls and in other areas. To give some examples:

RSR with a Skill is a -1/2. RSR with a Background Skill is -1/4. The difference in cost between a Skill and a Background Skill is 1 point. The difference between a -1/4 and a -1/2 is 2 for every 15 points in the Power. That's unbalanced. The two should be the same....making them different is trying to be "fine grained" without any purpose and with a negative effect.

The difference in value for RSR for Background skills is because Background skills only cost 1 point per +1, rather than 2. This makes them much cheaper, especially since most character with RSR Powers will buy up the required skills.

[gewing]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

This was one of my quibbles also. I always liked having a full alphabetical section of advantages, another on Disadvantages. Having to dig some of them out of the power descriptiond bugs me.

 

Oh, will the .50 BMG go back up to 3d6?

 

 

At the risk of coming off as an AOLuser' date=' "Me too!! Me too!!" I love the increased info on stats (and what happens when they are Drained, etc.) the additional info for skills is very good (specifically the "8- means this; 11- means this, etc. etc." - though the spoonfeeding of "if you have a DEX of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, you have a skill roll of 12-" kinda bugged me; but I'm elitist like that.), but the splitting of all the Advantages and Limitations really bugged me. If it had been me (and I know it wasn't ) I would have gone for a listing of Power type-specific Advantages and Limitations in their section, followed by a [i']full[/i] listing after the Power listings. Or heck, even a place holder with a "see pg. XX" would have been great. The usefulness of the specific lists was lost when I had to hunt quite so much.

[JmOz]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

I think Steve has made it quite clear that there will be no rules changes in 5ER. However, I happen to love rules questions!

 

 

 

Think about the possibility of such a modifier. Logically, as Hugh says, it should be +1/2. As long as you stay within the realm of Killing Attacks you're okay. But when you jump to HA you discover a problem. An HA with "Range" will end up costing 5/d6, identical to an EB, only you can add your STR to it. An EB with "Adds STR" would cost half as much more for identical effect. It doesn't balance. The best solution is, in fact, to use EB. In heroic levels games, where character's don't pay points for their equipment anyway, it's perfectly fine to define many weapons as "throwable" where STR above the STR Min will still add to damage.

 

 

The difference in value for RSR for Background skills is because Background skills only cost 1 point per +1, rather than 2. This makes them much cheaper, especially since most character with RSR Powers will buy up the required skills.

 

A couple of options:

 

For HA make it a +1 advantage

Consider the fact that (Drum Role please) you have to spend more end than an EB (I know advantages/etc)

Reduce the HA limit

 

I personaly have allowed HA to take the ranged advantage and not found it to upset anything

 

Also consider this is legal take HKA, Ranged, stun only...

[JmOz]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

The one revision I would like to see is the folding of Damage Shield into Trigger.

[Steve Long]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Folx, let me see if I can save everyone a little time and trouble. I very much appreciate the suggestions -- believe me, I do -- but I think some focus is being lost here.

 

This is not the 6th Edition. I don't intend to change the rules about Charges, RSR, Damage Shield, HA, or anything else except in the limited circumstances that I've already discussed in various places. When the time comes -- many, many years from now -- I'll throw open the floor to discuss changes in anything and everything, ranging from the firmest fundaments of the system to the most esoteric optional rules. But now isn't the time for that sort of discussion.

 

What I'm more interested in are suggestions like "include a separate index of Power Modifiers" or the like -- things that make the book easier to use. There's a limit to what I can or will do, and ultimately the final decision rests with me, but I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.

[Simon]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Folx, let me see if I can save everyone a little time and trouble. I very much appreciate the suggestions -- believe me, I do -- but I think some focus is being lost here.

 

This is not the 6th Edition. I don't intend to change the rules about Charges, RSR, Damage Shield, HA, or anything else except in the limited circumstances that I've already discussed in various places. When the time comes -- many, many years from now -- I'll throw open the floor to discuss changes in anything and everything, ranging from the firmest fundaments of the system to the most esoteric optional rules. But now isn't the time for that sort of discussion.

 

What I'm more interested in are suggestions like "include a separate index of Power Modifiers" or the like -- things that make the book easier to use. There's a limit to what I can or will do, and ultimately the final decision rests with me, but I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.

Fair enough.

 

Including a fully-detailed list of the rules for Charges would be a good thing. When Charges get a cap of +0, what order to apply the optional Adders in (Clips are always figured last), etc.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

What I'm more interested in are suggestions like "include a separate index of Power Modifiers" or the like -- things that make the book easier to use. There's a limit to what I can or will do' date=' and ultimately the final decision rests with me, but I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.[/quote']

 

Then it's time for me to bring up some personal peeves.

 

First, move all the advantages and disadvantages not specific to a particular power to the advantage and disadvantage section. This most affects Ablative and Hardened.

 

Second, give all of the powers with an Opaque option (like Entangle and Force Wall) a seperate cost for targetting vs non-targetting senses.

 

Third, put a chart somewhere that defines whether a sense group is considered targetting or not.

 

Minor issues?

 

Give "detect person with power" and "detect active use of power" some coverage. These can change many aspects of a superheroic campaign (the second one all-but-nullfies invisibility for example).

 

Put "Ranged" under "Range Advantages".

 

Please reconsider the "Clinging Damage Shield" and "Whenever I need it darkness grenade Trigger" examples. The second one in particular is not a good choice as an example, in my opinion, and both involve controversial builds. If you insist on keeping "whenever I need it", explain why all the grenades wouldn't go off at the same trigger event.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Folx, let me see if I can save everyone a little time and trouble. I very much appreciate the suggestions -- believe me, I do -- but I think some focus is being lost here.

 

This is not the 6th Edition. I don't intend to change the rules about Charges, RSR, Damage Shield, HA, or anything else except in the limited circumstances that I've already discussed in various places. When the time comes -- many, many years from now -- I'll throw open the floor to discuss changes in anything and everything, ranging from the firmest fundaments of the system to the most esoteric optional rules. But now isn't the time for that sort of discussion.

 

What I'm more interested in are suggestions like "include a separate index of Power Modifiers" or the like -- things that make the book easier to use. There's a limit to what I can or will do, and ultimately the final decision rests with me, but I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.

This is much of the reason that I didn't suggest moving Automaton Powers and the Power Modifiers for Vehicles, Bases, and weapons from Chapter Four into Chapter One, or get started yet again on my Telekinesis rant. The additions I asked for earlier are already published, quite useful, and not likely to be included otherwise (unlike things like the No Turn Mode Advantage, the new Adders for Change Environment, the new Talents in Fantasy Hero, and such).

 

I'd like to add one more thing right now -- the "Increased Damage Differentiation" from The Ultimate Brick (playtest). It's a good thing for nearly any Heroic campaign regardless of the presence of bricks, and can also apply to PRE Attacks, Powers, and other situations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

A couple of options:

 

For HA make it a +1 advantage

Consider the fact that (Drum Role please) you have to spend more end than an EB (I know advantages/etc)

Reduce the HA limit

 

I personaly have allowed HA to take the ranged advantage and not found it to upset anything

 

Also consider this is legal take HKA, Ranged, stun only...

 

If you make "STR Adds" a +1 advantage with Hand Attack, it now costs 20 points for +3d6 Hand Attack (3d6 x 5 points = 15 x 2 for "STR adds"/1.5 for Hand Attack). I could buy +20 STR for the same price, get 1 more d6 damage, figured, and ancillary STR benefits. So I believe +1 is overpriced.

 

Actually, even +1/2 can be viewed as overpriced. For the same price, I could still get 5 points of STR. But, from the KA logic, I should be paying the same price for 1d6 of attack at no range for which STR adds, and for 1d6 at range with no STR addition. Of course, to be fully comparable, that +1/2 should limit the STR add to double the attack's DC, as is the case with a KA.

 

Part of the problem with Hand Attack is that it's a bit of a kludge. An EB - no range would cost the same amount but not add STR, but you should then be allowed to Spread the EB to boost your OCV. STR with No Figured would give the same damage capacity at the same cost, plus enhance lift, leap (assuming you don't call that "figured"), throwing distance, etc.

 

Taking out all the other benefits of STR is reasonably a -1/4 limitation. Maybe HA should be based on STR, with a -3/4 limitation instead of the present -1/2. That's clearly a rules change, and I don't see it happening in 5ER.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

First' date=' move all the advantages and disadvantages not specific to a particular power to the advantage and disadvantage section. This most affects Ablative and Hardened.[/quote']

 

I would take this one step further. The front of the Powers section presently includes numerous advantages, limitations and adders for specific types of powers, such as "costs END to activate" for BODY affecting powers, "Reduced fade rate" for Adjustment powers, etc. I would like to see these removed from that section and placed in the Advantages and Limitations sections. Perhaps these might be categorized as "Adjustment Power Advantages" and "Movement Power Limitations" to clarify they are intended for use with those types of powers, or perhaps not (Armor Piercing isn't an "Attack Power Advantage" and we seem to get along OK).

 

Second' date=' give all of the powers with an Opaque option (like Entangle and Force Wall) a seperate cost for targetting vs non-targetting senses.[/quote']

 

Yes, please. As an aside, if "affects porous" is going in for TK, could we polease expand it to Force Wall and Entangle, where it would also be useful? Skirting a rules change, I know, but if there is no present rule, it's not really a "change", is it?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Steve, the parameters you describe are pretty much what I'd assumed from previous remarks you made - and I think they're fair.

 

Since we're confining this to ease-of-use suggestions: would you consider including a Velocity Conversions Table which displays a range of movement rates in Game Inches/Turn and converts them to MPH/KPH, like the one in the 4th Edition BBB/HSR p. 142? The formula in FREd is awkward to use if all you need is a quick ballpark figure. If that isn't possible, at least put a specific entry for the formula in the Index; unless you've actually read the 5E section on "Velocity-Based DCV" you wouldn't know where to find it.

[austenandrews]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

How about a handy one-page reference sheet with the STR, SPD, Combat Maneuver, Combat Modifier & Time Charts? Would save a lot of page-flipping during combat.

 

-AA

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

 

Since we're confining this to ease-of-use suggestions: would you consider including a Velocity Conversions Table which displays a range of movement rates in Game Inches/Turn and converts them to MPH/KPH' date=' like the one in the 4th Edition BBB/HSR p. 142? The formula in FREd is awkward to use if all you need is a quick ballpark figure.[/quote']I don't know about chewing up space for an entire table; maybe just include:

 

X inches/Turn = 3/8*X miles/hour = 3/5*X k/hr.

 

The worst error is less than .5%