What should be DROPPED from HERO?

[zornwil]

Okay, there was a thread on what should be added to HERO (in terms of Skills, Powers, Chars, etc.) and one about COM where some have said that should be dropped - not a new idea, but...

 

...there might be some new ones out there.

 

What do you think should be dropped? I am NOT talking about changing the rules per se - just powers or skills or such that you feel are unnecessary or should be built based other existing powers or skills? Or chars?

[paigeoliver]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Multiple power attacks.

Blazing away.

Two weapon fighting

 

Essentially every new concept that was added in 5th edition.

[Kristopher]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I'll agree on multiple power attacks. It seems like the only time I see them dicussed is when a thread devolves into "my pet character could beat your pet character" "nuh-uh" "yeah he could" "nuh-uh" powergaming stupidity.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Limitations. They are the twinkdevils bread and butter.

[Rapier]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

MPAs have their uses, most especially in MA campaigns. I'm not sure how they are listed in the book but they should definately be moved into an out of the way corner of the Optional Rules section. Definately not something you want just everyone playing with. I don't want them removed, just changed/updated to provide more support (eg I require some kind of Power Skill roll for MPAs).

 

Blazing Away and TWF also have their uses.

 

Most of the rules that have been added for 5th are not campaign universal. A bunch of them are more geared towards a specific genre. In certain genres they work very, very well and in others its abominable.

 

I just can't think of anything in particular that needs to be removed.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Essentially every new concept that was added in 5th edition.

[paigeoliver]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

 

Well, blazing away is essentially useless unless you specifically design a munchkin effect around it.

 

While multiple power attacks, and two weapon fighting can have a drastic effect on the game, and they aren't even presented as optional.

 

Matter of fact, when I went to start playing Hero again I still had the 4th edition book, but my player's had a 5th edition book, and the very first character one of my new player's presented to me was a 2 weapon-fighting specialist. I was like WHAT? I then looked at those rules and said NO WAY. I never even agreed with D&D's assessment that holding 2 weapons in your hands really give you double the attacks. It made no sense under AD&D's minute long rounds. It makes even less sense under Hero's 2 or 3 second phases.

 

It doesn't make sense with swords. Holding 2 swords doesn't give you the ability to independently aim and swing twice as many times. The only real effect it gives is a spare weapon, and a bit of defense. While holding 2 guns could certainly allow you to pull two triggers at once, but you certainly couldn't aim them independently, matter of fact it wouldn't even be any faster if you were bothering to try and point the gun back at the target after each trigger pull.

 

As for multiple power attacks. Well now anyone can get around the active point limit of the campaign, legally, and it isn't even optional. It is basically the same thing as 2 weapon fighting, except now it can get even worse.

 

At least in D&D it had hefty penalties that couldn't simply be overcome by tossing a few points into skill levels.

[Katherine]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Well, blazing away is essentially useless unless you specifically design a munchkin effect around it.

 

While multiple power attacks, and two weapon fighting can have a drastic effect on the game, and they aren't even presented as optional.

 

Matter of fact, when I went to start playing Hero again I still had the 4th edition book, but my player's had a 5th edition book, and the very first character one of my new player's presented to me was a 2 weapon-fighting specialist. I was like WHAT? I then looked at those rules and said NO WAY. I never even agreed with D&D's assessment that holding 2 weapons in your hands really give you double the attacks. It made no sense under AD&D's minute long rounds. It makes even less sense under Hero's 2 or 3 second phases.

 

It doesn't make sense with swords. Holding 2 swords doesn't give you the ability to independently aim and swing twice as many times. The only real effect it gives is a spare weapon, and a bit of defense. While holding 2 guns could certainly allow you to pull two triggers at once, but you certainly couldn't aim them independently, matter of fact it wouldn't even be any faster if you were bothering to try and point the gun back at the target after each trigger pull.

 

As for multiple power attacks. Well now anyone can get around the active point limit of the campaign, legally, and it isn't even optional. It is basically the same thing as 2 weapon fighting, except now it can get even worse.

 

At least in D&D it had hefty penalties that couldn't simply be overcome by tossing a few points into skill levels.

 

Actually using Two weapons if you are properly trained does allow you to attack multiple times OR use one for defense. You attack simoulaneously with both weapons. Its taught in two weapon fighting styles like Escrima, Kali and certain schools of fencing. At least that is what I have learned. That's in the real world.

 

I can't speak for guns I've never tried to use two at once. I suppose you could point them both and shoot at once.

 

In a cinematic world such as what Hero tends to emulate both of them are obviously a pretty effective technique. Personally, I haven't had any problems with Two Weapon fighting, certainly nothing game breaking. And everything in Hero is optional. You don't want them in your game, don't use them but I don't think they should excised from the game entirely because you don't like them.

[paigeoliver]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Oh, I don't argue that there are not two weapon techniques, I just don't believe that they actually allow for more attacks, as simply opposed to more effective attacks.

 

Or even if they do, it IS system breaking for me. The 4 speed 2-weapon fighting specialist completely overshadows anyone else (combatwise) in a heroic campaign.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Oh, I don't argue that there are not two weapon techniques, I just don't believe that they actually allow for more attacks, as simply opposed to more effective attacks.

 

Or even if they do, it IS system breaking for me. The 4 speed 2-weapon fighting specialist completely overshadows anyone else (combatwise) in a heroic campaign.

 

Well, that kinda mimics cinematic fiction where most two weapon specialists (who tend to be rare) can dance circles around just about everyone else.

[OddHat]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Dive for Cover should go. Annoying as hell that is. Frickin' agents can dive out of the way of lasers, and my OCV means nothing? A SPD 7 character with Breakfall is practially invulnerable when facing a SPD 4 character with no Area Attacks? Screw that.

 

The Covered rules need to be made much more explicit or dropped. In the games I've seen them used they were interpretted in order to screw the players as much as possible. Exactly what breaks cover and how needs to be explained, with examples; I'm hoping that 5thER does this.

[Markdoc]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Dive for Cover should go. Annoying as hell that is. Frickin' agents can dive out of the way of lasers' date=' and my OCV means nothing? A SPD 7 character with Breakfall is practially invulnerable when facing a SPD 4 character with no Area Attacks? Screw that.[/quote']

 

Nani? Unless your laser is area of effect, dive for cover just means you have an airborne target...

 

On other topics, I outlawed multipower attacks in my game, long, long ago and the GMs I played with soon did the same. Linked, yes, MPA no. I've never seen a single convincing reason why they should exist - either in the comics or on these boards.

 

Two sword fighting, etc is pretty stoopid - having trained with two weapons in martial arts, it's very plain that two weapons do *not* equal twice as many attacks. Not only do you very rarely use two weapons to hit at the same time, but even if you do, you end up with two weak attacks instead of one strong one. Two weapon fighting does allow you a wider range of attacks and puts your opponent on the defensive since he has two threats to watch. A very common approach is to attack with one - to draw a block and then attack with a second at the exposed site. Both effects are best described by a bonus to OCV.

 

But having said that, I have no real objection to two weapon fighting in Hero system. First off, it *is* undeniably cinematic: having a character with two weapons is now a shorthand way of saying "badass". Second, it's so expensive, that I have not found it unbalancing: the same number of points spent on CSLs will let you kick the two-sword guy's butt.

 

So I'd like to lose MPAs. That's about it, really - almost everything else can be tweaked.

 

cheers, Mark

[OddHat]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Nani? Unless your laser is area of effect' date=' dive for cover just means you have an airborne target...[/quote']

 

Read the full Dive For Cover rules on p.260 of FRED, specifically the last couple of paragraphs. It allows you to automatically avoid non-area attacks by diving 1 hex away. With a few Dex levels a character with Breakfall and a high enough SPD can avoid anything, so long as he holds his action until the bottom of the phase (another munchkin option). Yes, there are counters, yes, it's optional. It's still cheesy as hell.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

For info, Blazing Away predates 5e. I think it was in 4e Dark Champions. It's main use is as a PRE attack modifier (an automatic Incredibly Violent Action).

 

If you're going to eliminate 2 weapon fighting, you need to deal with Sweep and Rapid Fire as well. All 2 weapon fighting does is enhance those maneuvers a bit. BTW, assume the 1 weapon character uses a shield and pumps the cost of 2 weapon fighting into DCV levels when using a shield, and use a big shield. Now let's see whether the two characters are closer to equal in effectiveness.

 

MPA's are workable, in my opinion. In fact, I would like to see the EC restriction lifted - that character paid a lot more for his multiple attacks than Mr. Swiss Army Multipower. I caveat this with the fact that the only character who regularly uses them in our games has a VPP which is explicitly limited to be incapable of reaching 13 DC total, MPA or not, so we haven't had a character with 3 - 60 AP attacks firing off together. But if it's a bad idea when the powers aren't linked, how does requiring most of the attacks to take a -1/4 or -1/2 limitation (and be cheaper) alleviate this concern?

 

As to dropping something, I'd probably relax some resrictions presently in place, but I can't imagine dropping anything. Hero is a toolbox. The toolbox should have every tool possible. Campaign specifics dictate which rules get used. I'd rather have rules I don't need than need rules I don't have.

 

EDIT: No, wait, I know what can go. Let's ditch Transfer. It's just a construct that blends Drain and Aid, so we should simply have an example power which uses the two to create the same effect.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Oh, I don't argue that there are not two weapon techniques, I just don't believe that they actually allow for more attacks, as simply opposed to more effective attacks.

 

Or even if they do, it IS system breaking for me. The 4 speed 2-weapon fighting specialist completely overshadows anyone else (combatwise) in a heroic campaign.

Just how long do you think it takes a seasoned cop to accurately fire off the entire clip of his handgun in real life assuming he is using a standard 9mm 15 round weapon?

 

I doubt it would take him 30+ seconds which is what your argument appears to support (assuming a max SPD of 4 and only 1 shot per phase).

 

Standard attacks in HERO assume that the attacker is sitting on the fence when it comes to Offense vs. Defense. That's why there are such severe DCV penalties involved with all of the multiple attack manuevers regardless of whether 1 or 2 weapons are involved.

 

HM

[RDU Neil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Read the full Dive For Cover rules on p.260 of FRED' date=' specifically the last couple of paragraphs. It allows you to automatically avoid non-area attacks by diving 1 hex away. With a few Dex levels a character with Breakfall and a high enough SPD can avoid anything, so long as he holds his action until the bottom of the phase (another munchkin option). Yes, there are counters, yes, it's optional. It's still cheesy as hell.[/quote']

 

Yah... this is the most stupid piece of 5th Ed I've read. I modified it...

 

If the attack is targeting your HEX or a nearby HEX, you can dive for cover from the effect. If the attack is targetting YOU, then DFC isn't an option. Your dive is a dodge maneuver instead. That works pretty well.

[RDU Neil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I had serious misgivings about MPAs in the beginning (actually had a thread asking folks about them) and yet I've found that they are not a problem... so far... in my campaign. I've always allowed the "two gun kid" stereo-type, which is essentially an MPA attack. Having a character able to use their laser vision and flame breath at the same time doesn't usually harm the game much. I'd even be up to allowing the classic superman "heat vision while slugging" attack, since I think that is the most common superhero genre use of MPAs. (This means that only levels with all combat would apply, and all the other caveats, of course.) This also gives further support to Multipowers as balanced, since you can't use all the attacks as they draw from the same power pool. This gives advantage to those who buy their power attacks "Clean."

 

I would consider revising the rules into very clear "basic rules" which should be about the size of Sidekick or so... and "Advance rules" which are all more clearly stated as optional, with comments about which genres find them more useful than others.

 

(Big issue with "supers" as a genre, is that it steal from every genre. The two gun kid is a superhero as well as stalwart flying brick man... yet one rule that helps one genre hero hoses or breaks another genre. Presenting each rule as equally effective and generic just makes this more likely to happen and cause a game breakdown.)

[MitchellS]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

've never seen a single convincing reason why they should exist - either in the comics or on these boards.

Batman doing a martial disarm and a takedown on a tough opponent at the same time. Batman throwing a batarang and a stun bomb at the same time. Punisher shooting an uzi in the right hand and a .44 magnum in the left. Ironman using his repulsors and his unibeam to blast someone. Thor pelting one man to the grown with wind while his summond lightning hits someone else. The comics are literally full of multiple-power attack examples. MPAs need to be monitored by a GM but they are a valid ability which can cover a lot of special effects.

[MitchellS]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I'd even be up to allowing the classic superman "heat vision while slugging" attack' date=' since I think that is the most common superhero genre use of MPAs.[/quote']

Our GM allows some hth and ranged MPAs too. Your heat vision example is common, as is Batman throwing a batarang while punching/kicking someone infront of him. As with any rule, the GM just needs to monitor the situation.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

My eye-rolling was aimed at the "Every new concept in Fifth Edition" hyperbole. Disliking three specific things != "everything new in 5th Edition." However...

 

Well' date=' blazing away is essentially useless unless you specifically design a munchkin effect around it.[/quote']It's not useless. It's main use is described right there in its write-up; you trade some Charges/END in exchange for a PRE Attack boost for an "extremely violent action."

While multiple power attacks, and two weapon fighting can have a drastic effect on the game, and they aren't even presented as optional.

Matter of fact, when I went to start playing Hero again I still had the 4th edition book, but my player's had a 5th edition book, and the very first character one of my new player's presented to me was a 2 weapon-fighting specialist. I was like WHAT? I then looked at those rules and said NO WAY.

Oh, so it is optional... at least in campaigns with GMs.

 

Seriously, I guess I just disagree with your assessment of Two-Weapon Fighting as hideously unbalancing. You're paying the cost of an entire Martial Arts package, and getting what amounts to "I'm better with Sweep than the average person." That doesn't seem terribly unbalanced to me.

It doesn't make sense with swords. Holding 2 swords doesn't give you the ability to independently aim and swing twice as many times. The only real effect it gives is a spare weapon, and a bit of defense. While holding 2 guns could certainly allow you to pull two triggers at once, but you certainly couldn't aim them independently, matter of fact it wouldn't even be any faster if you were bothering to try and point the gun back at the target after each trigger pull.

Seeing as I have no reason to accept these assertions, I don't choose to do so. I see no reason why two swords or two guns could not be aimed independently... especially by someone who had practiced doing so long enough that they had to spend as many points for the skill as it takes to be a black belt in a martial art. Just because you or I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done (particularly in a cinematic campaign).

As for multiple power attacks. Well now anyone can get around the active point limit of the campaign, legally, and it isn't even optional. It is basically the same thing as 2 weapon fighting, except now it can get even worse.

I think you should read the rules for multiple-power attacks again. For one huge thing, you can't have two powers in the same Framework participating. How many characters do you actually see that have two attacks of any noteworthy size, where they're not both in the same Framework? Granted, it does happen. But not that often.

 

In the nearly-three years since H5E was released, I think Multiple-Power Attacks have been used in our campaigns exactly twice. And no one has a character built around it.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Dive for Cover should go. Annoying as hell that is. Frickin' agents can dive out of the way of lasers' date=' and my OCV means nothing? A SPD 7 character with Breakfall is practially invulnerable when facing a SPD 4 character with no Area Attacks? Screw that.[/quote']Well, I could point out that, yes, Spider-Man essentially can evade a single SPD 4 character with no Area Attacks indefinitely.

 

Seriously, we've made it a house rule that, if you use Dive For Cover against a single-target attack, you must actually be able to reach some kind of cover in order for it to work. If you just dive one hex over, but are otherwise still in plain sight, the gunman will simply shoot you in your new location.

 

It's illogical to ban it against single-target attacks completely; if a gunman is firing at me, and I can dive behind the wall I'm standing next to and get out of his line-of-fire, then there's no reason that shouldn't work.

 

But as written, I agree that it makes it a little too easy to use DfC to evade single-target attacks.

 

'Course, all this only holds as long as there is only one attacker... If there are multiple attackers, using Dive For Cover to evade one of them is a desperation move indeed. (Which frankly brings up another point. Dive For Cover isn't hideously abused because the penalties make it a desperation move. Who in their right mind would DfC (cutting their DCV in half) instead of Dodging (increasing their DCV by 3 or more), unless they just absolutely couldn't allow themselves to be hit under any circumstances?)

[susandwyer]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I have an elf in a fantasy campaign who's main (only) wepon is a bow. She has a 5 speed and high dex and is usually first on the comat grid. However, whenever my turn is called, I reply, "Holding." If I take my action, I am at 1/2 DVC for everyone elses action (and the bad guys would cream me if they could catch me). I hate doing it because I think it is playing the rules against the game but I don't want to die either! I'm not sure if the 1/2 DCV after bowshot should be removed, but perhaps something should be done to make it more fair?

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Re MPAs, here's my house rule - but nobody in the game has expressed a desire to do MPAs, and they know I'm flexible if the rule/house rule seems too prohibitive, so I haven't had a chance to see how it would work or not - (btw, the "genre" referred to below is supers, that is what these house rules are for)

 

The inclusion of Multiple Power Attacks (MPAs) in 5th edition is a major change to combat. The rationale is not entirely wrong, and in fact is even genre-correct in many instances (e.g., Iceman might fire an energy blast that also entangles, but also may fire those separately thus they are not linked); thus I am inclined to find ways to accommodate it. I feel that it is an exception in the genre rather than the rule and thus am adding disincentives that correlate with this which also reflect the increase in flexibility and power it represents. Powers that a player desires to include in any MPAs require at least a +1/2 advantage. Every power with a +1/2 advantage may be combined if and only if it is intrinsically related to the other powers with the same advantage. Typically this would apply to powers in ECs, and sometimes VPPs and MPs. The notion of "intrinsically related" means that the SFX are either identical or symptomatic of the same source of power. Normally this would mean that adjustment powers would affect all of these equally. Powers which are not intrinsically but are reasonably related may be added together with a +1 advantage. An example of this might be magical powers which stem from different foci but for which the caster is drawing on the same elemental energy. Please note the text does note many other requirements/limitations.

[Kristopher]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Like I said before...it seems the most coverage I've seen MPAs get on these boards is when people discuss things like the interminable _________ vs _______ fight, with the bloated, multi-framework, enough DCs to vaporize a tank platoon by spreading, uberdupervillains. I guess reading "Yeah, well, so-and-so will just fire this out of this multipower and this other thing out of his gadget VPP together as an MPA and blah blah blah" over and over again has left a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to MPAs.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I have an elf in a fantasy campaign who's main (only) wepon is a bow. She has a 5 speed and high dex and is usually first on the comat grid. However' date=' whenever my turn is called, I reply, "Holding." If I take my action, I am at 1/2 DVC for everyone elses action (and the bad guys would cream me if they could catch me). I hate doing it because I think it is playing the rules against the game but I don't want to die either! I'm not sure if the 1/2 DCV after bowshot should be removed, but perhaps something should be done to make it more fair?[/quote']If you go by the letter of the rules, you're not supposed to just "hold." Technically, you have to specify what you're waiting for: a specific circumstance or a specific DEX value.

 

Of course, since the rules allow you to change your mind about what you're waiting for, and take the action at any time, it amounts to this kind of "open-ended" holding anyway in the end. But you could always change that.

 

In our own campaigns, we have two kinds of Held Actions. One is the open-ended Held Action; you're just waiting to see what happens rather than waiting for something in particular. If, when you use your action, doing so interrupts someone else's action, then you have to beat them in a DEX roll. (In other words, it functions mechanically just like the normal Held Action rules.)

 

The other kind is the specific Held Action. With this one, you must state what specific circumstance or DEX value you're waiting for. When that circumstance or DEX value begins to occur, you can immediately use your Held Action, with no DEX roll needed, even if you're interrupting someone. The flip side of that is, if the circumstance you're waiting for doesn't occur, or if you want to change what you're waiting for, then you can't use your Held Action to interrupt anyone else... you have to wait for their action to resolve.

 

So if you said, "I wait for the villain to come around the corner," then you could immediately use your Held Action as soon as the villain appeared around the corner, without having to best the villain in a DEX roll, even if doing so prevented the villain from having a chance to shoot you first. But if the villain didn't come around the corner (say, if he flew over the building instead), then you would not have a chance to DEX-off with him to interrupt him with your Held Action. He'd get to shoot (or whatever) first, and only when his Phase was over could you use your Held Action.