What should be DROPPED from HERO?

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

MPAs have been around a lot longer than 5th Ed. - I remember debating them on the old AOL board. It's just that 5th Ed. was the first to give them official imprimateur.

 

As such we've had MPA'ing character's around in our games many times. The most abusive of these have generally been characters with VPPs or two multis. A VPP offers flexibility, but at the cost real power: it's hard to get a VPP up to a point where you do mongo damage - that's always been their major "real world" limitation.

 

Unless you MPA.

 

It doesn't have to be some gonzo power combination - if you have a -1 in limits on a power (not that hard to do) then you can do two full strength attacks. A 60 point gadget pool can churn out 2 4d6 RKAs. Ugh.

 

To me the argument "Yeah, but Batman can punch someone and throw his batarang at once" simply makes no impact. It could as easily be two actions, occuring close together as two simultaneous actions - after all would you allow an attack and an abort at the same time? You see that in single panels in cartoons too.

 

MPAs reek of munchkinism. The only good suggestion I have seen is Zorn's with the ice blast/iceblast plus entangle, but I prefer to model that with two powers (for examples, slots in a MP), a linked power or a power stunt.

 

cheers, Mark

Weren't MPAs in the past primarily the result of either Linked structures where there was a desire to delink as needed (the old Linked debate, which MPAs go far in addressing a component of), or simply "unofficial" builds? As you say re 5th and its official rulings, as I recall (which is always dangerous!) there wasn't anything prior that even addressed MPAs aside from the fact that Linked existed, was there?

[Warp9]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Hee hee... we're getting back to the "Five Powers" model.

 

You could arguably build any of the other Powers in the book by starting with five basic Powers (Attack, Defense, Sense, Move, and Transform) and applying Adders, Advantages, and Limitations.

 

I've always liked that concept.

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I don't like how Transforms (e.g. man into frog) that you could buy as one power in 4th now have to be three (Transform man's mind into frog's mind' date=' Transform man's spirit into frog's spirit, Transform man's body into frog's body). I guess in some cases you could get by with less, but we usually just make people pay for one.[/quote']

My feeling on the body/mind/spirit is that it's a nice EXAMPLE of how to contain and apply Transforms, including how to inherently limit them, but I don't like that discussion as actual orthodox ruleset. From the latter perspective, I entirely ignore it as well.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Transform is just Attack with different end results.

Nah, you've got to have Transform, because that's the basic power that things like Shape Shift, Multiform, and Duplication would be built with.

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

That FAQ entry would have saved me some frustration at one point.

Which I also find interesting, as I could have sworn there was some ruling in the past that INTRODUCED the idea that Breakfall could be used for DFC. Don't know where I got that notion.

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I'd prefer something that started at a more basic level, e.g.:

 

1pt of PD or ED (not sure if I like those distinctions anymore either, but that's another topic) for 1pt - this way it is no different than buying PD/ED, and thus not another level of complexity

- Uses no END

- Provides no damage resistance (which may be impacted by how killing attack, energy blast, hand attack, etc. would work once combined into a "Damage" power)

- From there, apply lims for Costs END (-1/2) (i.e., non-resistant Force Field), or advantages (i.e., with the Costs END, add Resistant (+1/2), to get Force Field; or just add Resistant (+1/2) to get Armor)

This is a good kind of thread for tangents, so tangent I shall, re "not sure if I like those distinctons anymore either," I know what you mean. I think that's an interesting discussion itself. I think the defenses SHOULD still be differentiated because they matter more - and most logically - in some settings where energy is rarer and defenses are often constructed that might matter against Phys but matter much less against Ener. However, in supers games people usually try to jack up both to the same value, plus, most notably, inanimate objects (typically) get just DEF and it covers both of course. So it is an oddity.

 

What I could imagine is that people get DEF instead of PD and ED, also, BUT DEF actually = PD and ED each as your base, and you add to EITHER as you wish with defenses. That way you can model a high-energy force field that can't hold back a knife, for example. And you can buy leather armor that does great for PD but doesn't do as much if you are struck by a fire blast. Something like that. But I haven't given it enough thought...

[RDU Neil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Hee hee... we're getting back to the "Five Powers" model.

 

You could arguably build any of the other Powers in the book by starting with five basic Powers (Attack, Defense, Sense, Move, and Transform) and applying Adders, Advantages, and Limitations.

 

While I wouldn't reduce the game to this, I do think it is a solid structural model. Have meta-powers categorized in this simple way... give the rules for modifying within that category... then give a bunch of examples of how this meta-power actually looks in game play (Defense is meta-power... actual game play power is Force Field, Armor, whatever...)

 

That is a solid, organized, effective way to make the fundamentals of the game clear, while also providing "finished product" (Armor statted out, Force Field statted out) that are plug & play.

 

The Five Powers model has been around forever. It shouldn't usurp the Hero system, but why not use it to better balance and organize the Hero system?

[OddHat]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Nah' date=' you've got to have Transform, because that's the basic power that things like Shape Shift, Multiform, and Duplication would be built with. [/quote']

 

You'd just Attack yourself, with the advatage "Transform" added to the cost of the attack.

 

Or you could use my Coolness system, and just change shape through the sheer power of your awesome Cooluality.

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Hee hee... we're getting back to the "Five Powers" model.

 

You could arguably build any of the other Powers in the book by starting with five basic Powers (Attack, Defense, Sense, Move, and Transform) and applying Adders, Advantages, and Limitations.

I have long wished we could see a "Fundamental HERO Toolkit" or such that actually broke everything down to these basics and explained how you could derive the HERO system - or any other you wish to build! - from those fundamentals. It would be the true "toolkit under the toolkit" (and in my view the TRUE tookit PERIOD, as HERO as it stands has attributes of a toolkit but is still too derived as a system, and not so easy to deconstruct as a real toolkit, since so much of it is coherently enmeshed that significant changes can have unplanned, unbalancing effects).

 

One of the serious challenges lies in the costing aspect - just as Talents aren't always derived directly in terms of costs (i.e., a Talent as built from the base components may cost more or less than makes sense and therefore in a few cases HERO recosted those to reflect applicability/balance rather than the "actual" cost), the Powers of the HERO System as derived from a "Fundamental HERO" system simply wouldn't always be a direct correlation. So part of the challenge would be explaining how to derived costed systems from the fundamental system. In fact, one question would be whether the fundamental system would even be cost-driven or simply the pure mechanics, with a separate mechanical system to derive either a costed, randomized, or other such system from it.

 

It is a daunting task. I've seen people cooperatively try to create the purely fundamental HERO system via listserv and board, and it falls apart quickly. Some of that is the nature of asynchronous, unfocused communication in place of a real action plan to get it done with dates and commitments of scope, of course, but part of it is truly that the job is complex and demanding. But it would be absolutely WONDERFUL if it were done, because we'd finally fulfill the promise underlying HERO of having that tookit from which we could derive any number of major variant systems.

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Transform is just Attack with different end results.

 

I like my old Cool Stuff model:

(snip)

 

Apparently, I can't give out rep right now...but this deserves it!

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

You'd just Attack yourself, with the advatage "Transform" added to the cost of the attack.

 

Or you could use my Coolness system, and just change shape through the sheer power of your awesome Cooluality.

Cooluality? Is that like nucular?

[Rapier]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

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.

Au contraire, mon frere. I can most definitively assure you that fighting with a second weapon does indeed provide quite a bit of advantage and allow much faster attacks. When used properly, two handed melee fighting isn't really two handed. It's as if one hand could be in more than one place at a time. It's hard to describe, but when done properly the two weapons work in concert and within and among each other in a way that most definately does allow two attack to land simultaneously.

 

A main-gouche (a smaller blade held in the off hand...usually a dagger or a short long-knife) is primarily used for parries and blocks. However, when used properly it can also become an attacking weapon. There are a number of maneuvers that will close the distance between opponents. The goal in these circumstances is to get inside the reach of the main weapon and within reach of the main-gouche. It would be some very odd circumstances that would allow you to strike with both points (but possible), however striking with the guard of the sabre while stabbing with the main-gouche is quite possible and an extremely common maneuver. In the hands of a properly trained fencer, using two weapons (and getting the benefits of two attacks) is simple; if for no other reason than there is no need to reset the weapon between attacks: both weapons can strike at once, one weapon can strike while the other is resetting and vice versa or one weapon can be held in a ready position while the other attacks.

 

EDIT: I realised I had forgotten to mention. When using two weapon fighting you never attack with the same strength as you would with a single weapon...or if you do you are ignoring the second weapon. Especially in fencing, the entire body is used behind an attack giving it quite a bit of force. By leaving yourself strength, effort, momentum, angular velocity etc for the remaining weapon you are limiting the attack strength of the main weapon. In Hero terms, you allow the TWFer to only use his STR towards one attack (eg Of the 20 STR, Rapier the Gay Blade will divert 15 pts of his STR towards his sabre and 5 STR towards his dagger -- dont forget STR Mins).

 

Similarly, Escrima (phillipino stick fighting where the weapons are hard wooden rods of equal length) uses each hand interchangably. The attack is not predicated upon if you are right handed or left handed, but upon which hand is in the more advantageous position. If both hands are equally advantageously positioned, both sticks are used to attack simultaneously.

 

Attacks at range are a little different. Using two weapons and aiming at the same target are not an issue at all. It's just a little practice at "trick shooting" that needs to be done. You allow your vision to not concentrate along any one path. You unfocus your vision so that you are, in effect, aiming out of each eye. Unless very practiced, you are not going to get as good control or targetting, but man-sized objects don't always need as fine a control.

 

It would also be possible to fire two handguns at separate opponents (as long as they were not too far apart). There is skads of evidence, proof and documentation of "shooting from the hip." Now, last time I checked my hips and my eyes were nowhere near each other. So how do you aim? Hand-Eye coordination of course. Once you learn to shoot from the hip, you can aim rather effectively without direct line-of-target. It isn't much further from there to using two weapons, shooting both "from the hip," as it were. Once both weapons can be shot effectively, from the hip...it is not that far a stretch to begin to raise the 'hip' to chest level.

 

Two-Handed fighting is very real, very effective and very appropriate. One of the big detractors for the BBB was this lack. Two Handed Fighting and MPAs address this and are, IMNSHO, a vital and necessary portion of certain genres and combat styles.

[OddHat]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Cooluality? Is that like nucular?

 

Your cooluality is the non-numeric measure of your coolness, as oppossed to the numeric value (your Cooluficient).

[Agent X]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Weren't MPAs in the past primarily the result of either Linked structures where there was a desire to delink as needed (the old Linked debate' date=' which MPAs go far in addressing a component of), or simply "unofficial" builds? As you say re 5th and its official rulings, as I recall (which is always dangerous!) there wasn't anything prior that even addressed MPAs aside from the fact that Linked existed, was there?[/quote']Bruiser is an example of a pre-4th Edition character who is obviously using multiple power attacks. He is very strong. Occasionally, but not always, he can choose to hit in a more punishing fashion that reduces physical defense as well as stun and possibly body. Multiple Power Attacks were pre-5th edition. However, they were implicit as opposed to explicit.

[Rapier]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

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).

It isn't any real difficulty to fire 2 or even 3 rounds in a single second. My father was quite adept at firing 2 or 3 shots from a shotgun in a single second and there is a heck of a lot more draw on a shotgun than the trigger on a handgun.

[slaughterj]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

While I wouldn't reduce the game to this, I do think it is a solid structural model. If you everyone can have things categorized in this simple way... give the rules for modifying within that category... then give a bunch of examples of how this meta-power actually looks in game play (Defense is meta-power... actual game play power is Force Field, Armor, whatever...)

 

That is a solid, organized, effective way to make the fundamentals of the game clear, while also providing "finished product" (Armor statted out, Force Field statted out) that are plug & play.

 

The Five Powers model has been around forever. It shouldn't usurp the Hero system, but why not use it to better balance and organize the Hero system?

 

Yes, this discussion has been around for a long time, but I think it may be worth serious consideration.

 

One large concern I have with the way the Hero system works (that maybe the 5 Powers thing would help with) is the problems that occasionally arise with the interaction between AP (Active Points), RC, END, Multipowers, etc. For example, I could buy Flash 3D6 (30 AP), No Range (-1/2) (20 RC) which costs me 3 END to use, compared to 2 END for a base 20 point power (also, you get the shaft when trying to wedge it into a Multipower). But I have the flexibility to buy Killing Attack either Ranged or Hand, don't have to apply a limitation, thus not having to "overpay" END for the power. Another example (to show the math, not the logic of the particular example within the system) would be to buy Force Field with Reduced END (+1/2) and Non-Resistant (-1/2) to simulate Blue Skin Man's ability to create layers of blue defensive skin, which would cost the same as PD/ED, but due to the advantage/limitation setup, would not be as good as just buying PD/ED if it was being put in a Multipower. There are a myriad of examples, including better ones, so please don't bother addressing the specific examples, but rather the concept in general. And yes, I know if you switch END to being RC based, it also creates a problem, because over things like spells that get over-saddled with limitations and have a very low RC. I didn't say I had a solution

[susandwyer]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

If you go by the letter of the rules' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

We actually have both these as well, the GM lets me do it because he got tired of hearing me complain about dying just because I was fast enough to go before everyone else.

[susandwyer]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

The 1/2 DCV on a bow comes from having the Concentrate Limitation on it. Maybe your GM will let you buy "Nimble Archery" or some such as a Skill or Talent, with the cost based on the amount it would take to "buy-off" Concentrate on your kind of bow.

 

(For example, a Heavy Longbow is 2d6K (30 Active Points). Concentration throughout is a -1/2 Limitation. A -1/2 Limitation on a 30 point power lowers the cost to 20 points. So it's saving 10 points on the bow. Maybe you could buy a Nimble Archery skill for 10 points.)

 

I'll have to loo9k into these... thanks!

[zornwil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Bruiser is an example of a pre-4th Edition character who is obviously using multiple power attacks. He is very strong. Occasionally' date=' but not always, he can choose to hit in a more punishing fashion that reduces physical defense as well as stun and possibly body. Multiple Power Attacks were pre-5th edition. However, they were implicit as opposed to explicit.[/quote']

I didn't know there were specific characters, as I never really got into any CU stuff, but I guess I meant to say just that, they were implicit instead of explicit. Thanks AgentX.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Nah' date=' you've got to have Transform, because that's the basic power that things like Shape Shift, Multiform, and Duplication would be built with. [/quote']

 

I like the "transform is Attack with a different result" theory.

 

The missing power for the Five Power Model is Summon. Duplication is a Summon of selves. Mutliform and Shape Shift are Summons that dismiss the user, so you end up with just the "Summoned" new self.

[Rapier]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I like the "transform is Attack with a different result" theory.

 

The missing power for the Five Power Model is Summon. Duplication is a Summon of selves. Mutliform and Shape Shift are Summons that dismiss the user, so you end up with just the "Summoned" new self.

Naw. Summon is Transform Nothing Into Something.

[slaughterj]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

Naw. Summon is Transform Nothing Into Something.

 

Naw. Summon is Move Others.

[Agent X]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

As light-hearted as this discussion about what summon is, it tends to make me feel it would be a very bad idea to reduce Hero down to five concepts.

 

edited to make sense

[RDU Neil]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

As light-hearted as this discussion about what summon is' date=' it tends to make me feel it would be a very idea to reduce Hero down to five concepts. [/quote']

 

I like how you said "a very idea"

 

 

A very GOOD idea?

 

A very BAD idea?

 

 

Nope... just a very idea.

 

Anyway, I'm with Rapier... Summon is just transform nothing into something... or moving an already existing something from there to here.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: What should be DROPPED from HERO?

 

I'd argue that Attack is actually a type of Transform. In fact, I bet it can be done with just three.

 

Move: Go from one point to another.

 

Transform: Change the abilities possessed by something.

 

Enhanced Senses

 

Transforms do not affect people but rather powers. Armor is a Transform that affects offensive powers (possibly only those with a certain SFX, possibly not) after they are used. Teleport is a Move with Ignore All Obstacles. An attack is simply a transform that removes Body and Stun.