HERO System Sixth Edition--What do *you* want to see?

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Aroooo

I think after a while, DOJ should release a Hero Lite PDF to the net. Small 20 page doc with the basic rules for character construction and combat. It would be a handy reference, and a good way to get new players into the fold.

 

Aroooo

 

This subject was actually discussed quite a bit on the "pre-Denial of Service Attack" boards. To some extent the issue is addressed in the HERO System Resource Kit by the Character Creation Booklet and the tables on the GM's Screen (which also appear on the players' side of the screen so they can refer to them). However, a lot of people expressed an interest in creating a "lite" version of the rules to help newbies break into the system, less intimidating than FREd. Apparently Steve Long initially had no interest in doing such a project, but by the end of the discussion was convinced of the desire for it and promised to get to it as soon as he had the time. (There's responsiveness to customers for ya!)

 

IIRC, Steve's plan was for a stripped-down version of the rules: the main Powers and Modifiers without a lot of the descriptions and options; basic Combat Maneuvers without all the optional ones; and so forth. He suggested needing something in the 48-64 page range to do justice to the material, but was adamant about wanting it to be a free download from the website. Oh, and Steve himself suggested a name for it that the fans seemed to take to: since it's going to be a smaller, less-powerful version of the HERO System, he proposed calling it the HERO System Sidekick.

 

Now all we need is for Steve to find the time to write it; to quote Hamlet, "Aye, there's the rub."

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by SkyKnight

What I'd like to see is everyone on this thread playing the 5th edition rules as written for a while before they get too excited about making changes. This is especially true for people who want to go back to earlier versions of the rules. I don't necessarily agree with the way everything was done in FREd, but I'm sure that the changes are the result of multiple YEARS of play. We'll have plenty of time to try things out in the 10 years or so before the next edition.

 

I'm glad you said that, SkyKnight. There can't be a more fine-tuned and fine-combed game engine out there than 5E HERO. Granted, just about everyone has ideas about how to make something work "better"; tinkering is in the nature of HERO gamers. And of course, FREd encourages us to change whatever we don't like for our personal games. But as the comments on this thread illustrate, no proposed changes have close to universal approval (with the probable exception of Damage Shield, and even then, the proposed fixes are as numerous as the people suggesting them). A change that one person hates may be loved by someone else.

 

For my part, I've seen almost nothing in the new ruleset that's out-and-out broken - open to abuse if not closely monitored, but not broken. And I still don't grokk the new rules well enough to make definitive decisions about what I think should be changed. I want more playing time under my belt first. I do have faith that Steve Long didn't unleash any utterly ruinous rules on us.

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly

Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?

 

I'm not sure if this is what tiger meant, but FREd has a change in the rules for missile reflection: you can't abort to it, even though you can abort to missile deflection.

 

The BBB doesn't say you can't abort to missile reflection (as far as I can tell), it simply treats it as a special case of deflection. Since you can abort to deflection, I always assumed you could abort to reflection too.

 

I'm not sure why this was changed, or even if it really is a change: maybe it's just a clarification, and most people have always played it that way. I don't have a problem with it, as long as a character with missile reflection can at least abort to missile deflection. But FREd seems to treat missile deflection and reflection as more distinct powers than the BBB did, so I'm not sure if that's legal.

[slaughterj]

I want to see:

 

1. DAMAGE SHIELD FIXED! - It should only be a +0 Advantage on EB, and not require Continuous as part of its definition (an advantage would be required for it to work for the character's typical melee attacks). We can start yet another separate thread if an explanation is desired for my proposed cost structure.

2. Fix limited capacity Extra Limbs - if a limb is weaker, apply the lim to the Limb (pun intended), not to STR, else all the previously-discussed issues arise.

3. I like the idea of breaking down all the powers to their most fundamental parts, but think that might get a bit far afield from recognizable Hero (i.e., 2.5-3 pts for every 1D6 normal damage attack, without range, without STR added, etc.). Smaller fixes can be done that would be good though, like commingly Attack powers and Defense powers, so that if I want to buy a Drain vs. ED, I don't have to have it work vs. natural ED, Armor, and FF, or a Drain vs. an attack, but don't have to have it cover both EB and RKA.

4. Address the "mutually drained" aspects of EC powers and designing Drains, so that stupid shit doesn't arise - If you have an EC (TK powers) with FF and Flight, and Gravity boy wants to pin you to the ground, should his Drain Flight affect your FF?! Even more importantly, was Drain Flight the right power to have for that effect! Instead, what should happen is that if someone with a Drain 1 TK power comes along, then they hit all of them in the EC instead.

5. ECs were set up to deal with common source powers, yet often an MP is used at the same time - set up a smooth mechanic for tying them together and subjecting them to the Mutually Drained aspect (but see #4 above). I.e., Fire Dude with EC: FF & Flight, with a MP with 4 attack powers - if his FF is drained, so is his Flight (hopefully not stupidly, see #4), but so should his MP, though that's not the current setup (per a 5e question I asked Steve, he suggested a -1/4 lim get slapped everywhere).

[Harry Canyon]

Originally posted by zornwil

I would really like to see a concentration on a "roll your own" flavor with a large section on how to design new capabilities and eliminate existing ones. I'd like to see fewer core rules/constructions with a larger collection of suggested uses in other books. But I am very much in the minority, a lot of people take great exception to scattering "new rules" (their terms) in genre books. I feel on the contrary it lends more specific flavor to those genre books and is not "new rules", rather it is simply specific applications of an underlying structure (if done correctly). For example, Instant Change would really be crucial in a superhero game but less important, to the point of non-consideration, in other genre. That or Instant Change ought to be recosted in superhero games to better represent its commonality and encouragement.

This is like the structure of so many things. But UI/Workflow design for software comes to mind.

 

Frequently, if someone finds a really good UI/Workflow in a program, it's because the design follows how that person "thinks". They want tool x and, lo and behold, it's right there were they expect it.

 

With a poor UI/Workflow, occasionally it's just designed by people with a different workflow, so it seems bad. Even though there are plenty of people who like that particular design. (Although it certainly could just suck by all standards! )

 

Several have mentioned some good things, for one a Damage Shield does seem a bit pricey to me. But I think they've managed to be very internally consistent with most things.

 

First, I've yet to finish the entire Black Tome of Goodness. With that said, what I'd like to see in a future version is quite frankly, better organization. What? You ask? How can that be?

 

Initially I was quite impressed. Quick rundown of the different types of powers, then on to the detailed descriptions of the powers themselves. Okay. So far so good. I finished the powers section and decided to create my first villian. (I'm a long time Hero player, so I figured I'd just look up the details as needed.) So I'm merrily jotting down powers and advantages/limitations and need to see their values. I look in the appropriate section. Strange... It's not there. On to the index! Oh, there it is. What's it doing there? Why are some advantages and limitations only listed within power descriptions or power examples, instead of in the logical sections titled "Advantages" and "Limitations"? Certainly some arguement could be made that those powers are the ones they are most commonly used with. But how does that help the reader find them easily? I can also see arguement for not repeating them to save space. This is certainly valid and allows for more data in the book, but it doesn't help the "workflow" IMO.

 

Then again maybe "they" just "think differently" than I do.

 

So, uhh... that's what I'd like... So far...

 

Take care,

 

Harry

[Dynamo]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly

Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?

Originally posted by Uncle Shecky

I'm not sure if this is what tiger meant, but FREd has a change in the rules for missile reflection: you can't abort to it, even though you can abort to missile deflection.

IIRC, Champions II or Champions III had a power called Reflection. My copies of those books are boxed up in preparation for moving, so I can't look it up (that is, I'm unsufficiently motivated to go through all those identical laserjet paper boxes I collected from work), but I believe it was kind of like a Damage Shield that could affect ranged attacks.

[TheEmerged]

RE: The "Play it before you whine" Defense. Um, I have been playing it Note that a lot of my suggestions were layout or example issues.

 

In some cases, where I became aware of 5th Edition changes in advance, I've been playing with the 5th Edition changes for some time. Flash at 5pts per d6 (and operating by Segment) and Aid at 10pts per d6 (although we had it costing END and still healing) are things I've used for a couple of years now, and they work well.

 

5th is EASILY the BEST, most COHERENT and INTERNALLY CONSISTENT system out there -- by far, no comparison. That's not saying its perfect, because it isn't. Granted that many of the issues only appear in limited circumstances (the whole STR/CON thing isn't nearly the issue in superheroic campaigns it is in NCM-default campaigns) -- they still exist.

 

But don't mistake my efforts to improve on it for a statement that it doesn't work or I don't like it -- far from it. I would say that I love it enough that I want to make it better

 

RE: 1/4 advantage/limitation steps. Disagree with the suggestion to eliminate this, and strongly. One of the things I like about 5th over 4th is the increased number of purchase-worthy +1/4 advantages, because in a low-active-cap campaign quite often even a +1/2 advantage makes the power borderline useless unless the advantage is specifically geared toward affecting the damage (NND, Penetrating, Armor Piercing, Autofire, etc.).

 

Take AVLD for example. How many times have you actually seen a power built with this? I'd be willing to wager the answer is, Not Often. The reason of course is that in many ways you're paying an extra +1/2 advantage to have a power less useful (more likely to do less damage) than an NND. Which reminds me, I knew there was something else I would like changed in 6th

[Uncle Shecky]

IIRC, Champions II or Champions III had a power called Reflection. My copies of those books are boxed up in preparation for moving, so I can't look it up (that is, I'm unsufficiently motivated to go through all those identical laserjet paper boxes I collected from work), but I believe it was kind of like a Damage Shield that could affect ranged attacks.

 

That's right, it was introduced in Champions II, and it was not part of Missile Deflection (although it was modeled on it). The description in Champions II is interesting so I'm reproducing some of it here:

 

"...The character has a base chance of 18 or less for a cost of 30 pts., +1 per 3 pts. The character's chance to reflect is -1 for every 5 active pts. in the incoming attack. Each Reflection roll after the first is made with a cumulative -2 penalty .... The character's DCV is 0 while he is reflecting an attack. ..."

 

It's cool that it was the active points in the attack that made reflection difficult, not the attacker's OCV. And I like the drop to 0 DCV: you have to let yourself be hit to be able to reflect it back. I prefer the deflection-based power as it is now, but that's an interesting take on it.

 

The Champions II description doesn't specifically mention whether Reflection is passive (like Damage Shield) or whether you can abort to it like a block, but the example implies that you need to use a held action: "HONEYBEE had reserved her action, and attempts to reflect FLARE'S attack back."

 

So 5th edition has restored that "can't abort to" aspect, and maybe it was meant to be that way all along.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by archer

Include the Incomplete Character rules!

 

You'll get no argument from me

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by slaughterj

1. DAMAGE SHIELD FIXED! - It should only be a +0 Advantage on EB, and not require Continuous as part of its definition (an advantage would be required for it to work for the character's typical melee attacks).

 

This comes up a lot, but I tend to disagree on one aspect: I believe that Continuous very much should be a requirement for Damage Shield. However, I also think that in general Damage Shield is less useful than Continuous for Ranged Powers, and so should reduce its cost by -1/2

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Nelijal

Yep, you're right, you're the minority . I have purchased genre books that I'm not really interested in just for those few rule pages that also apply to other genres.

 

Not as much of a minority as you might think, and I believe you are misunderstanding his point. The idea is to have fewer Powers that can all be expanded on to get all the ones currently in the book. For example, Instant Change was rolled into Transform (I know that a lot of people don't like this, but I rather do, and once it's built you just plunk down the 7 or 8 points and write Instant Change on your sheet).

 

As another example, one not in the current rules (but one that has been touched on in this thread, if my memory of the three pages isn't failing me), instead of having Armor and Force Field and PD/ED/DR, you just have PD/ED/DR, and can define a new power Armor as the three together, and Force Field as the the new Armor power with Costs Endurance.

 

In other words, all the rules would be in the core book: if that's all you're interested in, you never need to buy another book. Specific instances of how to use them would be in examples, both in the same core book and in other books.

 

I'd like to see that.

[Trebuchet]

1) Bring back "Shockwaves" for Bricks. It's absurd to have to spend 50 points on what amounts to a "Power Trick".

 

2) Consider a Power "Invulnerability" vs. single attack types or special effects, rather than using "Desolidification" as a bass-ackwards way to do it.

[ShadowRaptor]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

1) Bring back "Shockwaves" for Bricks. It's absurd to have to spend 50 points on what amounts to a "Power Trick".

 

2) Consider a Power "Invulnerability" vs. single attack types or special effects, rather than using "Desolidification" as a bass-ackwards way to do it.

 

I second this nomination for Invulnerability vs. single attack types, it would make it much easier than to use Desolodification, plus it would be much easier to say during a conversation.

[Aroooo]

Originally posted by GamePhil

As another example, one not in the current rules (but one that has been touched on in this thread, if my memory of the three pages isn't failing me), instead of having Armor and Force Field and PD/ED/DR, you just have PD/ED/DR, and can define a new power Armor as the three together, and Force Field as the the new Armor power with Costs Endurance.

 

Having played Hero for many years, as well as some published and fan Fuzion games - and I even have a copy of the Fuzion Champions, I'd just like to add my opinion to this conversation.

 

I'm not sure simplifying the Powers is a good thing, especially for new players. We've all seen posts from newbies sating that they are having problems making their first few characters. I remember making my first Champions character way back when. I was confused for a while.

 

Don't oversimplify the powers because "you" know the rules really well and know the difference between Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall.

 

Aroooo

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by GamePhil

Not as much of a minority as you might think, and I believe you are misunderstanding his point. The idea is to have fewer Powers that can all be expanded on to get all the ones currently in the book. For example, Instant Change was rolled into Transform (I know that a lot of people don't like this, but I rather do, and once it's built you just plunk down the 7 or 8 points and write Instant Change on your sheet).

 

As another example, one not in the current rules (but one that has been touched on in this thread, if my memory of the three pages isn't failing me), instead of having Armor and Force Field and PD/ED/DR, you just have PD/ED/DR, and can define a new power Armor as the three together, and Force Field as the the new Armor power with Costs Endurance.

 

In other words, all the rules would be in the core book: if that's all you're interested in, you never need to buy another book. Specific instances of how to use them would be in examples, both in the same core book and in other books.

 

I'd like to see that.

I went back and reread the original post and you're correct, I did misunderstand. The concept as originally stated and explained by you goes well with the idea of further breaking down the powers into more generic building blocks. This would probably reduce the number of rules, but would require more explanation and examples for people to understand how to build what they wanted, which would be covered in the genre books. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Originally posted by Aroooo

I'm not sure simplifying the Powers is a good thing, especially for new players. We've all seen posts from newbies sating that they are having problems making their first few characters. I remember making my first Champions character way back when. I was confused for a while.

 

Don't oversimplify the powers because "you" know the rules really well and know the difference between Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall.

This is the big problem with this issue. It's kind of like programming in BASIC versus assembly language. BASIC is easy, but limits your flexibility if you try to get creative with it because its predefined components do things one certain way (though modern extensions to BASIC have tried to correct this), whereas assembly language has no predefined components and is very flexible, but requires a lot more effort than BASIC to accomplish a given task.

 

AD&D is the BASIC of RPGs, and I'm not aware of a game that resembles assembly language, but I'd call HERO a C/C++ style of game, which isn't a bad thing.

 

There really isn't a "right" answer here; it all depends on what you want from the system. I imagine Steve pondered this point a lot while writing FREd.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Aroooo

Don't oversimplify the powers because "you" know the rules really well and know the difference between Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall.

 

Well, that's the thing: which is simpler, a description of Armor and Force Field, and PD and ED as Characteristics with the possible added Damage Resistance, or simply PD, ED, and Damage Resistance? To me, the latter is simpler: there are fewer rules, the only problem being possibly with the application.

 

Yes, it is simpler to have a list that includes Force Field, Armor, and so on, to just take and stick on the character sheet fully written. However, like in the case with Instant Change, once the new ability is constructed, you just pull it out of the list and use it. Only if you need added flexibility do you go to the core rules.

 

So, if the theoretical 6th Edition were to be done this way, you would have some set of "Core Powers" and all the Advantages and Limitations you might need. Then put in the Power List, which builds all the Powers in Hero 5th with these new rules (except the ones in the Core Powers), describes in largely the same manner, shows how they are built (similarly to the much disputed Instant Change), and then summarizes the cost.

 

The final result? Armor costs 3 points for 2 Resistant Defense, Force Field costs 1 point for 1 Resistant Defense and costs END. So you have the same rules, but you have a different foundation to work from, with any luck one that is even more flexible than the one we have now.

 

But as I said before I edited for clarity, that's if it's done well. If it's done poorly, it would be the stuff of nightmares.

 

Whew. Sorry about that.

 

[Old Man]

1. Fix the weapon and armor rules so that they're at least sort of balanced, rather than the broken crap that came in Fred.

 

2. Change some of the power costs to better facilitate heroic level games. Flight and force field are way, way, way too cheap. Drains and transfers are too expensive.

 

3. Bite the bullet and change the characteristics costs to balance STR and DEX at the very least. Personally I'd like to see DEX broken up into at least two different stats, e.g. 'agility' and 'coordination'.

 

4. Fix the skill system to allow finer grain at heroic levels. DEX is the only stat where each point really matters. Other stats (such as INT) have about four levels of granularity.

 

5. Fix the bleeding rules.

 

6. Fix Damage Shield.

[GamePhil]

1. Fix the weapon and armor rules so that they're at least sort of balanced.

 

It's the same as in 4th Edition, but if you're referring to the Limitation values I kind of see your point. Still, since they are applied to Powers that are not generally intended to have points paid for them anyway, I don't see a severe balance issue. Even when they are purchased, they are in games where other people get almost the same thing for free (I buy a magic 3d6 sword, my buddy over there got the 2d6 one for no cost), I don't see a problem with them being cheap.

 

Still, I do favor consistency.

 

2. Change some of the power costs to better facilitate heroic level games. Flight and force field are way, way, way too cheap. Drains and transfers are too expensive.

 

I generally use, and wouldn't mind seeing, a Utility Advantage/Limitation: if it's really useful in this game, it gets an Advantage, if it's not so useful a Limitation. However, if it never exists officially I wouldn't be bothered.

 

3. Bite the bullet and change the characteristics costs to balance STR and DEX at the very least. Personally I'd like to see DEX broken up into at least two different stats, e.g. 'agility' and 'coordination'.

 

Can't agree there. I especially like STR as it is, unless revisions were made system-wide (if they were to, for some reason, eliminate EC's altogether I could see increasing the cost of STR). Dexterity is also frequently argued to be broken, but I have yet to see an argument that applies universally.

 

4. Fix the skill system to allow finer grain at heroic levels. DEX is the only stat where each point really matters. Other stats (such as INT) have about four levels of granularity.

 

What would you suggest? Using an OCV/DCV like system, like Fuzion did? Or something else?

 

5. Fix the bleeding rules.

 

What's wrong with the Bleeding rules? Or were you just being terribly British?

[Mutant for Hire]

On characteristics:

 

1. Eliminate figured characteristics

Obviously, this may involve some adjustments of the STR and CON values, but possibly not. It makes bricks less cost efficient in some ways, but by eliminating figured characteristics, there is now the bonus that Bricks are not punished for putting STR into a Multipower with other Brick Tricks, which makes it more cost efficient to buy lots of STR.

 

2. Either eliminate COM as a characteristic or make it a more significant part of the game.

COM is really dead weight at the moment in terms of characteristics given that PRE is carrying the load for social stuff. I prefer something along the lines of an Advantage (gives bonuses to PRE rolls for the purposes of influencing others) or a Disadvantage (gives penalties for positive interactions but bonuses for negative ones).

 

3. Compress PD/ED into a single DEF stat

Of course players can by Armor with a "Physical/Energy Attacks Only" limitation. Why? A lot of people keep their PD/ED values at the same level, and I'm inclined to think that it probably would be easier to simply define DEF that way and then handle the exceptions of when physical defenses are different from energy defenses. The book keeping is a notch simpler for a lot of characters.

[GamePhil]

Re: On characteristics:

 

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

1. Eliminate figured characteristics

Obviously, this may involve some adjustments of the STR and CON values, but possibly not. It makes bricks less cost efficient in some ways, but by eliminating figured characteristics, there is now the bonus that Bricks are not punished for putting STR into a Multipower with other Brick Tricks, which makes it more cost efficient to buy lots of STR.

 

This idea comes up often enough that disassociating the Figured Characteristics from the Primaries is actually mentioned in the book now, as one of the options. I don't think I'd like to see it as a rule, myself, but if it were to be used you'd pretty much have to reduce the cost of CON, or give it other uses: at that point its only contribution would be resistance to being Stunned and the occasional CON roll, both useful but 2 points per point?

 

I don't see Bricks being penalized by losing Figured Stats with STR in a Multipower, though. It's really too powerful a slot and causes too many bookkeeping complications otherwise.

 

2. Either eliminate COM as a characteristic or make it a more significant part of the game.

COM is really dead weight at the moment in terms of characteristics given that PRE is carrying the load for social stuff. I prefer something along the lines of an Advantage (gives bonuses to PRE rolls for the purposes of influencing others) or a Disadvantage (gives penalties for positive interactions but bonuses for negative ones).

 

However, Comeliness is something everyone has, and many objects, as well. That's why it's a Characteristic, not because it's necessarily useful, but because it's always there. I wouldn't mind more examples of its utility, though it should never be more useful than the 1/2 point cost. I also wouldn't mind some concept of "subjective attractiveness", but that's almost certainly beyond the scope of a core rulebook unless it can be condensed into a short paragraph.

 

3. Compress PD/ED into a single DEF stat

Of course players can by Armor with a "Physical/Energy Attacks Only" limitation. Why? A lot of people keep their PD/ED values at the same level, and I'm inclined to think that it probably would be easier to simply define DEF that way and then handle the exceptions of when physical defenses are different from energy defenses. The book keeping is a notch simpler for a lot of characters.

 

Actually, very, very few of my characters have the same PD as ED. A few Bricks do. Usually, it just makes more sense to have them different: big burly fellow is still not as well defended against Energy than his energy projecting friends, though he can take a pummeling all day long. I wouldn't especially like this change.

[tiger]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly

Uhm...what? Missile Deflection/Reflection is still around...or is this something from a pre-4th Ed HERO version?

 

Yes but it works totally different than before. I had to completely redesign one hero because of the changes

[johnflang]

A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

 

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

 

In our campaign we use Recovery as the stat to base timeline on. It works, we have used it for years and everyone likes. If you have a high recovery or can have your recovery "aided" then it makes the game more interesting than GM discretion.

 

In a modern day HIghlander campaign we had a immortal on a jog. He crested the hill as a teammate fumbled a role with a fully loaded M60. By the time the dust had cleared our immortals first recovery was 5000 years later. It took a 3 month magic ritual to get his recovery high enough and 3 months of sustaining it to get him concious again. We had a fun doing the research and the ritual.

 

In conculsion, I would like to see a change to the table and get rid of GM discretion on neg 31 stun.

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by johnflang

A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

 

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

Actually, I'd like all negative stun to be GM discretion. Mooks should stay down. Major villains should get a recovery so they can attempt an escape. Heroes and medium importance villains can get recoveries if it's early in the evening.

 

Keith "Likes to get to bed at a reasonable hour" Curtis

[JmOz]

Originally posted by johnflang

A change I would like to see in Sixth Edition. When you are dropped below zero in stun, the table you recover too should be based on a stat, be it total stun, recovery, con etc...

 

In our campaign we use Multiples of recovery and the time chart. It makes no sense to me that a hero with a recovery of 35 that is knocked down neg 31 is at GM descretion but a hero with recovery of 10 who is neg 10 gets a recovery every phase.

 

In our campaign we use Recovery as the stat to base timeline on. It works, we have used it for years and everyone likes. If you have a high recovery or can have your recovery "aided" then it makes the game more interesting than GM discretion.

 

In a modern day HIghlander campaign we had a immortal on a jog. He crested the hill as a teammate fumbled a role with a fully loaded M60. By the time the dust had cleared our immortals first recovery was 5000 years later. It took a 3 month magic ritual to get his recovery high enough and 3 months of sustaining it to get him concious again. We had a fun doing the research and the ritual.

 

In conculsion, I would like to see a change to the table and get rid of GM discretion on neg 31 stun.

 

I use two optional (Characters benefit) for recoveries, simply put either as presented or by intervals of there Recovery, so High rec character recover quicker, but really low rec (norms) recover as per the book, most characters in my games range from 6-10, with a high of 35 (don't ask)

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

Keith "Likes to get to bed at a reasonable hour" Curtis

Gee, I thought the whole point of RPGs was an excuse to eat junk food and NOT get to bed at a reasonable hour.