Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

[ghost-angel]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I have no problems with Sniper Types, heck I have one. Mine uses Invisibility, but same it's the same basic idea.

 

It's the way it was done, if they went with a MindScan tactic I might not have much of an issue with it. But they went the MindLink/Clairsentience route with a House Rule Clairsentience that provides LoS if built a specific way... And they did it to specifically to avoid the two-way ciruit of the MindScan (nevermind they could've used the One Way Link advantage). And so the Mentalist can use his TK through the MindLink on objects (his fave is to take away enemy weapons) on the battlefield.

 

Heck, my character might start carrying business cards with the Longitude and Latitude of the coffee house on it and hand them out to enemy mentalists just to get a break for a phase or two (I've got no mental DEF yet...) heh heh .. I like that idea.

[Katherine]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

OTOH, it does make perfect sense that if someone discovered the mentalists little trick, they would exploit it. There's nothing that says the GM CAN'T exploit weaknesses in a PC strategies. Particularly if they are causing trouble for people smart enough or empowered to do so. Another mentalist with appropriate senses could very easily do the same thing to the PC and his team. A hired assasin, such as Utility example, would make sense particularly if the "invulnerable" PC has been making himself a pain in the ass to well funded people. The GM is under no obligation to not use a loophole to be "fair". Particularly since this game is is Iron Age as I understand it. Death, ambush and unconventional tactics should be common.

[Chimpira]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I play a lot without a map and sometimes something will pop up like a character is falling from a building or what not. The character will ask me if their is flagpole handy or anything similiar. I will say "it would be odd if it was." That is the cue for my player to roll a d6, if it comes up on an odd number then the pole is there giving the character a chance for the grab. I determine if the random factor should be used for the situation or not. It comes in handy but I would not really care for it to be established in the hero system.

[OddHat]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Obviously the concept of a character who can use his powers from safety while remaining untouchable can cause problems. The Hero system is flexible enough that this feat can be accomplished in a number of ways. The best way to handle the situation (assuming you don't like the idea of that concept) is to stop it before it starts.

 

But once the character is actually in the game, I would have a problem with the GM being "out to get" the offending character.

 

Zapping the badguys from miles away, while drinking coffee, is a pretty good trick (if you have a character who can get a way with it). It would involve some small risk, but nowhere near as much risk as being on the field of combat. IMO the only way that things are likely to play out differently is if the GM goes out of his way to make things hard for that character.

 

It may just be that I come from a "simulationist" perspective, but those sort of tactics on the GM's part do not appeal to me.

 

In some ways I agree. I've run campaigns where mentalists have used similar tactics, and one of my favorite villains is an (almost) undetectable mentalist. However, these were campaigns that were built with these types of characters in mind, and higher-powered successful Heroes and Villains tended to develop tactics for dealing with the problems caused by all sort of snipers, including psionic snipers.

 

If a GM does not want snipers in his game, he can and should forbid them.

 

In this case, a player is complaining about actions taken by another player's character, and the GMs reaction. That's a bad sign. Payer-Player and Player-GM conflicts can poison a game or a group. If the GM wants his group to hang together he should talk this out with the players involved.

 

However, there is no reason why a GM shouldn't let the Villains find some way of foiling a tactic like this, so long as it's in character. Psi, Menton, Demon, many of the Arcane Adversaries villains and whoever else the GM chooses to build should be able to track down a long range sniper like this and try to deal with him. He shouldn't do this to pick on the player; he should do it because it makes sense in-game, and because there's not much of a story without some challenge.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

He shouldn't do this to pick on the player; he should do it because it makes sense in-game' date=' and because theres not much of a story without some challenge.[/quote']

 

Well said.

[jackalope]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Nope. ghost-angel is correct' date=' that is a house rule.[/quote']

 

It's an optional rule, not a house rule. Look under Clairsentience.

 

I'm not sure that this would work the way you want it to either.

 

It should probably have Tracking added to it. And "Affected As Other Sense (Sight)", and maybe even Concentration (because he has to stand there and read the display), and even Gestures (to represent the constant fiddling and fine tuning the scanner requires to get a clear signal) or Requires Hands.

 

If you read in the book under Mental Awareness, it says: "The character can perceive the use of mental powers within his Line of Sight." It might be possible to rule that, as long as the target was within line of sight, then the user could be perceived no matter where he was. But that is not how I would call it. IMO if the power is limited to LOS, then it should not be picking up a user who might be on the other side of the planet.

 

I am presuming that someone with mental awareness can see some connection between the target and the mentalist. So, in this case, Utility would "see" a "line" (the mind link) extending from the mentalist's proxy back towars the mentalist himself. While Utility may not be able to see the mentalist, he should be able to track the power back to the source. Unless all Mental Powers are automatically Indirect, which seems unlikely since a mental power can be hindered by a Mental Def Force Wall.

[Warp9]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

OTOH' date=' it does make perfect sense that if someone discovered the mentalists little trick, they would exploit it. There's nothing that says the GM CAN'T exploit weaknesses in a PC strategies. Particularly if they are causing trouble for people smart enough or empowered to do so. Another mentalist with appropriate senses could very easily do the same thing to the PC and his team. A hired assasin, such as Utility example, would make sense particularly if the "invulnerable" PC has been making himself a pain in the ass to well funded people. The GM is under no obligation to not use a loophole to be "fair". Particularly since this game is is Iron Age as I understand it. Death, ambush and unconventional tactics should be common.[/quote']

I basically agree with what you've said. If one PC becomes a larger threat than all the rest, then probably that character is going to get more attention from the bad guys. And the "sniper" is not really better protected from a pre-emptive strike than any other character.

 

But it seems to me that the issue was not "how much pain the mentalist was causing the bad guys," but was instead that the character did not have to face the same risk as the other PCs while in combat.

 

If the other PCs get taken out, then the Mind-Link will no longer help the mentalist, which elimenates the threat to the bad guys. If the other PCs are still active, then the bad-guys are going to be under attack anyway.

 

In other words, just take out the other PCs, and you'll get rid of all your problems. And if you aren't able to deal with the other PCs then you have big problems anyway. So I don't see the need to go to any great lengths just to get the mentalist.

 

On the other hand, if you do happen to be part of an "All-Seeing-All-Knowing" type organization then going after the mentalist is an easy option. It should be no problem to get the mentalist, even if he is on the other side of the city. Of course, if the bad guys possess the right senses/abilities then none of the PCs are going to be able to keep secrets. It is likely that many of the others will be vulnerable to ambush as well. Just wait until "Powered-Armor-Guy" is out of his armor and in his secret ID, then go for the ambush.

[Warp9]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

It's an optional rule, not a house rule. Look under Clairsentience.

Agreed. I actually made that correction myself in a previous post.

 

I am presuming that someone with mental awareness can see some connection between the target and the mentalist. So, in this case, Utility would "see" a "line" (the mind link) extending from the mentalist's proxy back towars the mentalist himself. While Utility may not be able to see the mentalist, he should be able to track the power back to the source. Unless all Mental Powers are automatically Indirect, which seems unlikely since a mental power can be hindered by a Mental Def Force Wall.

That brings up an interesting point about constant powers. Does there always have to be a visible link between the source and target as long as the power is in operation? (there maybe a simple answer here, but I don't know it)

 

I would definitely assume that there would be a visible contact between source and target when a power is activated. And I could also understand that there would be a strong argument that the link should stay visible. But if a constant power like Mind-Link leaves a visible (at least to the right senses) web that can be used to easily track all the users around the city, then that would be a pretty big draw-back.

 

It should probably have Tracking added to it. And "Affected As Other Sense (Sight)", and maybe even Concentration (because he has to stand there and read the display), and even Gestures (to represent the constant fiddling and fine tuning the scanner requires to get a clear signal) or Requires Hands.

Of course this whole set up with the "Mental-Awareness-Tracking-Scanner" assumes that the assassian knows specifically what is being done. This knowledge assumes that he is aware that there is a "mentalist sniper" who is using a Mind-Link to establish Clairsentience, and in turn using the Clairsentience to establish LOS for attack.

 

Even if one is aware that there is an mental sniper amoung the PCs, those specific details might not be all that obvious. There are definitely a number of ways that a "mentalist sniper" might operate.

 

If the character was using Clairsentience more directly, then there would be no link to follow back.

 

And if the character were establishing LOS through N-ray, there would also be no link to follow back.

[Zanthis]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the party encountered a villian who's also a mental sniper? And as the villians minions battle the PCs with assistance from their absent evil mastermind, the PC mentalist and the archvillian realize at the same moment that they are both drinking their latte's in the same coffe shop only one table away?

[Warp9]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the party encountered a villian who's also a mental sniper? And as the villians minions battle the PCs with assistance from their absent evil mastermind' date=' the PC mentalist and the archvillian realize at the same moment that they are both drinking their latte's in the same coffe shop only one table away?[/quote']

I've got to admit that would be pretty cool.

[zornwil]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the party encountered a villian who's also a mental sniper? And as the villians minions battle the PCs with assistance from their absent evil mastermind' date=' the PC mentalist and the archvillian realize at the same moment that they are both drinking their latte's in the same coffe shop only one table away?[/quote']

I agree with Warp9, I think that would be too good to pass up. The GM of that game should do this!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Oh, I'll be bringung that idea up, that's for certain.

 

Of course, the player has been absent for the past half dozen sessions - and the game has progressed nicely without him.....

[Magmarock]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I don't want to take this thread too far off topic. (And I do have a few of my own house rules which I do NOT think should be made "standard issue.")

 

But I did want to take a look at the whole mentalist problem which was brought up. Other people's philosophy in regard to the "mentalist sniper" is a bit different than my own.

 

Obviously the concept of a character who can use his powers from safety while remaining untouchable can cause problems. The Hero system is flexible enough that this feat can be accomplished in a number of ways. The best way to handle the situation (assuming you don't like the idea of that concept) is to stop it before it starts.

 

But once the character is actually in the game, I would have a problem with the GM being "out to get" the offending character.

 

Zapping the badguys from miles away, while drinking coffee, is a pretty good trick (if you have a character who can get a way with it). It would involve some small risk, but nowhere near as much risk as being on the field of combat. IMO the only way that things are likely to play out differently is if the GM goes out of his way to make things hard for that character.

 

It may just be that I come from a "simulationist" perspective, but those sort of tactics on the GM's part do not appeal to me.

 

I haven't read all the way through the thread, so forgive me if this has already been brought up (or is later on).

 

After reading this post, I was reminded of the first X-Men Movie and how Xavier safely sat in a car and controlled Toad & Sabertooth. I think that Magneto came up with a very clever way to counter Xavier's tactics: He threatened the lives of the normals unless Xavier quit using his powers.

 

 

By the way, I agree with this post. Cheers,

 

 

Mags

[Vanguard]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

The problem as I see it Warp, is yes you can take out the metalists proxies and there by render the sniper null and void but the fact remains that the mentalist STILL isn't in danger and the rest of the PC's are.

 

I myself have had bad run ins with mentalists before (hence why Vanguard usually kills them on sight) and can understand GA's problem. Especially since it looks like the GM's think it's "kewl" and aren't going to do anything about it.

 

I think, and forgive me for putting words in your mouth, that GA wouldn't have a problem with it if the mentalist was using Mind Scan or something like that because then it would require a little bit of effort on his part as well as alerting the bad guys that there's a mentalist around.

 

As it stands, he can pretty much do what he wants with no fear of retaliation.

 

That's the biggest thing I've found out. PC's don't mind someone having a super nifty ability or something like that as long as it's fair. What's GA is talking about doesn't seem fair at all and I'm with Katherine about the GM going after him since it would be "in character" for the bad guys by now.

 

PS: I almost spit 7-up all over my monitor on the "10d6 transfrom" comment. thanks for the laugh!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Of course' date=' the player has been absent for the past half dozen sessions - and the game has progressed nicely without him.....[/quote']

 

No, he's in a coffee shop running his character by clairsentience, isn't he?

[Warp9]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

The problem as I see it Warp, is yes you can take out the metalists proxies and there by render the sniper null and void but the fact remains that the mentalist STILL isn't in danger and the rest of the PC's are.

I can understand the "out-of-character" motivations here, but these should not be confused with "in-character" motivatons.

 

The villians probably aren't going to care if the mentalist isn't taking the same risk as the other PCs.

 

 

 

I myself have had bad run ins with mentalists before (hence why Vanguard usually kills them on sight) and can understand GA's problem. Especially since it looks like the GM's think it's "kewl" and aren't going to do anything about it.

This paragraph is confusing to me because it seems like it mixes "in-character" stuff with "out-of-character" stuff.

 

Is it your character who has problems with mentalists, or you? Or is it both of you?

 

 

 

I think, and forgive me for putting words in your mouth, that GA wouldn't have a problem with it if the mentalist was using Mind Scan or something like that because then it would require a little bit of effort on his part as well as alerting the bad guys that there's a mentalist around.

 

As it stands, he can pretty much do what he wants with no fear of retaliation.

 

That's the biggest thing I've found out. PC's don't mind someone having a super nifty ability or something like that as long as it's fair. What's GA is talking about doesn't seem fair at all and I'm with Katherine about the GM going after him since it would be "in character" for the bad guys by now.

I still haven't seen the reasons for why the bad guys would care that much about going after the mentalist. I understand that you'd like them to go after the guy, but that should not be confused with the villian's motivations.

 

I have no problem with the villians working to exploit any major weakness in the PC's tactics. I just don't see the mentalist's tactics as a "major weakness." Sure, with the right abilities, the bad guys could go after the mentalist. But if the bad guys have such resources, then they could probably exploit a number of other weaknesses of other PCs as well.

[psm]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

You could also award the player less xp. If his character is in no danger of getting hurt then he should receive less than the other players.

 

By the way, I also liked the idea of having the mentalist supervillian sipping lattes in the same coffeshop.

[Vanguard]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I can understand the "out-of-character" motivations here, but these should not be confused with "in-character" motivatons.

 

The villians probably aren't going to care if the mentalist isn't taking the same risk as the other PCs.

 

No the villians aren't going to care that the mentalist isn't taking the same risks but they SHOULD care that they're getting the snot blasted out of them and it doesn't seem to matter who they take out.

 

I'm sorry but if I got nailed by a Xd6 Ego Blast no matter who I take out, I'm going to put some research into finding out WHY it was happening and coming up with a way to stop it.

 

 

 

This paragraph is confusing to me because it seems like it mixes "in-character" stuff with "out-of-character" stuff.

 

Is it your character who has problems with mentalists, or you? Or is it both of you?

 

Sorry about that. Actually, it's both. I despise mentalist because I think they get way too much for way to little as well as being able to single handedly ruin the game session ("what? we need the secret code to get in? I mind rape him")

 

As for Vanguard, it's an entirely IC reason why he hates them.

 

I *have* noticed myself giving my characters all "hatred of mentalist" and been trying to break myself of it since 90% of them wouldn't have that problem.

 

 

 

I still haven't seen the reasons for why the bad guys would care that much about going after the mentalist. I understand that you'd like them to go after the guy, but that should not be confused with the villian's motivations.

 

I have no problem with the villians working to exploit any major weakness in the PC's tactics. I just don't see the mentalist's tactics as a "major weakness." Sure, with the right abilities, the bad guys could go after the mentalist. But if the bad guys have such resources, then they could probably exploit a number of other weaknesses of other PCs as well.

 

This is where it breaks down into Non-PC type thing. It might not be an IC "major weakness" but it's an OOC one. At least it is to GA (and would be to me as well if I were playing in that game). All the others PC's risk something when they go on to the battlefield and this one PC isn't. Yet he's still getting the same XP, the same "recognition", etc as the players for "defeating" the bad guys when all he has to worry about is the latte mustache.

 

As stated previously, it would be bad for the gm to make specific "scenerios" to take down said sniper but the way it's been portrayed is that this is this guys MO for all the fights. I think the villians would have noticed this by now and if they've lost too many times because of it, take action.

 

On the OOC side of things, I think the GM should talk to the player and/or revoke the rule and make the power construct null and void.

[Zanthis]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Hate to continue the derailing, but any chase you could convince the GM to throw in a villian with a Mental Damage Shield that triggers Teleport Usable As Attack, Only to Floating Location: Right in front of me? Nothing like suddenly appearing in the middle of a battle, in a sitting position (but without a chair) holding a latte.

[Vanguard]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I do apologize for the derailing as well.

[Warp9]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I do apologize for the derailing as well.

 

And I also.

 

On the other hand, its not really surprising that a thread like this one will digress a bit.

 

I might help if we only talk about house rules that we personally use, rather even than the house rules of some other GM (even a GM whose game we might be playing in). Still I have found this side topic interesting.

 

Anyway, in the name of getting back on track, here is one of my rules that it would probably not be a good idea to put into the book. Note: The main reason that this rule is bad is due to complexity.

 

I have what I call "soft point caps." They are similar to but different than a "rule of X."

 

Basically a "soft point cap" is a point of diminishing returns, which helps encourage people not to Min/Max.

 

In a standard game I might have a soft point cap of 50 active points. Anything up to 50 would be normal cost. After that costs start to increase.

 

Every 10 points after the cap increases in cost.

 

Up to 1 to 10 points over the cap doubles.

Up to 11 to 20 points over the cap triples.

Up to 21 to 30 points over the cap X4.

 

For example (with a 50 point soft cap):

 

09d6 EB = 45 points normal = 45 points after caps

10d6 EB = 50 points normal = 50 points after caps

---caps kick in here EB, no longer costs 5 points per d6

11d6 EB = 55 points normal = 60 points after caps

12d6 EB = 60 points normal = 70 points after caps

13d6 EB = 65 points normal = 85 points after caps

14d6 EB = 70 points normal = 100 points after caps

 

You can go as high as you want, but it will cost you a huge amount of points. Normally you'd exceed the caps a bit in your character's main area. You might also exceed the caps by a ways on a power with a lot of limitations on it (my system makes it possible to build the Human Torch's Nova Blast power).

 

I've tested my system many times in the past. Often I build Characters for the Players based on their description of what they want (since I'm doing the work complexity is not a factor). But I've had some Power Gamer types build their own characters (they don't trust anybody else to do it for them), and my system has forced them to make reasonable characters (at least in terms of Min/Maxing).

[zornwil]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I started the thread, I'm not worried about the derail, it's good conversation.

[zornwil]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

And I also.

 

On the other hand, its not really surprising that a thread like this one will digress a bit.

 

I might help if we only talk about house rules that we personally use, rather even than the house rules of some other GM (even a GM whose game we might be playing in). Still I have found this side topic interesting.

 

Anyway, in the name of getting back on track, here is one of my rules that it would probably not be a good idea to put into the book. Note: The main reason that this rule is bad is due to complexity.

 

I have what I call "soft point caps." They are similar to but different than a "rule of X."

 

Basically a "soft point cap" is a point of diminishing returns, which helps encourage people not to Min/Max.

 

In a standard game I might have a soft point cap of 50 active points. Anything up to 50 would be normal cost. After that costs start to increase.

 

Every 10 points after the cap increases in cost.

 

Up to 1 to 10 points over the cap doubles.

Up to 11 to 20 points over the cap triples.

Up to 21 to 30 points over the cap X4.

 

For example (with a 50 point soft cap):

 

09d6 EB = 45 points normal = 45 points after caps

10d6 EB = 50 points normal = 50 points after caps

---caps kick in here EB, no longer costs 5 points per d6

11d6 EB = 55 points normal = 60 points after caps

12d6 EB = 60 points normal = 70 points after caps

13d6 EB = 65 points normal = 85 points after caps

14d6 EB = 70 points normal = 100 points after caps

 

You can go as high as you want, but it will cost you a huge amount of points. Normally you'd exceed the caps a bit in your character's main area. You might also exceed the caps by a ways on a power with a lot of limitations on it (my system makes it possible to build the Human Torch's Nova Blast power).

 

I've tested my system many times in the past. Often I build Characters for the Players based on their description of what they want (since I'm doing the work complexity is not a factor). But I've had some Power Gamer types build their own characters (they don't trust anybody else to do it for them), and my system has forced them to make reasonable characters (at least in terms of Min/Maxing).

Ooooh, another cool thing, I REALLY like this, have you considered a Digital HERO article? I agree this should not be the orthodox rule, but it is interesting. I might consider it for some campaigns (hard to say, I don't quantify caps at all/haven't in the past).

[Warp9]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

Ooooh' date=' another cool thing, I REALLY like this, have you considered a Digital HERO article? I agree this should not be the orthodox rule, but it is interesting. I might consider it for some campaigns (hard to say, I don't quantify caps at all/haven't in the past).[/quote']

Thanks Zornwil, it is good to hear that you like the idea.

 

And I would consider a Digital HERO article, if people would find this concept useful.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Your house rules you do NOT want to see as system rules

 

I suppose, since I was the cause of the derail, I should put in a few points for reference.

 

1) the Character I play really could care less where the Mentalist is, they're a regenerating/resurrecting medium DEF lvl brick ... and a Psych Lim "Disregards personal physical safety" so the combat thing is irrelevent from their POV. Though they have a healthy disliking of mentalists since they have no mental DEF.

 

It's the player, me, who is having some issues with the construct. They misinterpreted a rule (Mind Link) to allow LoS to be establish, when I pointed that out they immediately went to Clairsentience when I pointed out under the LoS description it should not be used for LoS either, lest it bring in game imbalances. Usually when the GM sees that he denies such options. In this case he added Clairsentience "To Establish LoS" allowing the character to use all Mental Powers through it - including their rather powerful Telekensis, which now allows them to play on the battlefield without any fear of being detected - another character carries a sword in and then "unleashes" it on the enemy. It was done simply because the player whined that he "Could no longer play the character, forget it." And tossed the sheet on the table. Hits my buttons for sure .... They should have rebuilt the character to include some physical defences, IMO, so they could at the very least be nearby the combat. But the player would have none of that.... the rest of the group has no "rebuild due to mistake" issues at all, ever.

 

And for what it's worth, anytime I see "(Unless the GM allows it)" in the text I assume it to not be an optional rule but a house rule for such things. Optional Rules are consistently labeled as such throughout the rules - GM Permission are not so much optional as Special Rules - i.e. House Rules. But that's completely my opinion on the matter. It's sort of a tip off, especially on a power that's already a STOP power, to stay the hell away from it unless you've got one hell of a damn good reason.

 

..

 

to comment on the Soft Point Caps rules .. I both like and dislike them, I can see the definite usefullness of such a contruct in some games. But I agree, it should not be cannon - it seems it might become a bit wonky if you raised the Base Point Cap over time as the campaign progresses - have you run into that issue and how do you handle it?