Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

IIRC the old 2nd and 3rd Ed White Wolf system included mechanics that made better hits more likely to do more damage.

Actually i think this went as far back as the original vamp' date=' which is where i got into WW games.[/quote']

For firearms only (as in guns, not use of the Firearms Skill; crossbows didn't use this rule). Of course, almost everyone I know mucked with this rule one way or another: making them automatic damage successes rather than extra dice; doing a similar method with all weapons; etc. I even ran a fantasy WW-like game in which I had weapon specialization Advantages that allowed you to apply extra attack successes as damage.

 

However, this is not the problem, in my mind. I think an attack roll affecting damage is fine. What I don't like is the damage capability/roll affecting your to-hit roll! That is just broken, and smacks of D&D's stupid to-hit bonus from Str (which of course goes along with their armor making you harder to hit rather than subtracting damage...)! Nevermind that the new merits now look so coincidently like D&D Perks....

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

My PC was caught out of his Power Armor by European neo nazis, who were armed with automatic weapons. As he couldn't possibly beat them, he was captured and taken to a ship to be incarcerated, whereupon he used his skills based on his Secret ID as a billionaire playbo to negotiate the unusual sections of the ship, put on the scuba gear in the secret diving chamber and swim back to the mansion. When he donned his armor and returned to the fjord where the ship had been, it was gone. There were enough clues to what the mastermind villain was after and the experience ultimately openned up a new campaign arc.

 

At no time did I feel screwed as a player or character, even though Cyberknight never fougt and his alter ego, Dr. Erik Thorssen was captured without a shot being fired.

 

Then there was that recent adventure, in Paris, where Cyberknight's Armor got turned off by the Villains' megascaled anti-technology spell, and he didn't even make it to the fight scene, ... Of course, that same adventure had several of the PCs depriving unconscious henchmen of all of their foci (thus preventing them from rejoining the fight when they woke up) before proceeding to assist the rest of the team to deprive the Big Bad of his OIF Independant foci, which not only continue to be unavailable, but were deliberately broken in order to turn them off before the supers admitted victory.

I also ran an adventure which Cyberknight and entire our team participated in where the bad guy had cast a magic spell over Manhattan Island which slowly destroyed technology (among other even nastier effects). The more sophisticated the tech' date=' the faster it failed. Guess whose powered armor is "bleeding edge" technology? [/quote']

I, as the GM of the Paris game, was unaware of this bit of history until after the Paris game was over.

 

There is a reason I try to avoid having my PCs rely on focus-based powers, and that reason is that the price break isn't big enough for the trouble it can cause. When you lose a focus, it tends to stay lost for the rest of the fight, and quite possibly longer than that.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I happen to like the Hero two roll system. I was simply observing that an official single roll variant essentially already exists within the confines of the current rules. And while there are some aspects of the combat system I'm not enamoured of (The Stun Lottery being top of my list)' date=' overall it's a pretty decent system. A streamlined way for new players to calculate BODY and Stun damage would be nice, but I've helped speed up that issue by using a die rolling program on my PDA.[/quote']

 

The best I've seen, for Normal BODY damage is "How many dice? add the number of sixes you rolled. subtract the number of ones. Thats how much body you did." Of course, I'd like to teach some of our younger players to group the dice by sums of ten and then simply count the groups and then tack on the sum of the leftovers.

 

Then there is the Hero three roll system: hit, location, damage.

 

This is still nicer than some of the systems I've seen in the past: "roll Okay, you hit, roll he blocked, but some of it got through, roll. Alright then, where did you hit him? roll that's in the ..., okay now roll for penetration, roll, and damage, roll, and stun, roll, and ..."

Okay, maybe it wasn't that bad, but I've got friends with dice that have noticable wear on the edges, and they've got twenty-sided dice that are nearly spherical.

 

Then there is the other extreme: GM rolls, "Okay, the dragon hit with his breath weapon, you're all dead."

 

I have yet to see a one-roll system that I'd even tolerate, much less like.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Where you gain from Standard effect is when you abuse it savagely with Killing Attacks that cut through normal defenses - again typical of what's wrong with Champions.

 

Killing attack combined with Standard effect rule? I know on only one GM who might allow it--if only for NPC monstrosities. Rant deleted. To my mind, any GM that permits a Standard Effect Killing Attack deserves a severe mocking, at the very least.

 

But that being said, I have no problem with the Killing attack's ability to cut through normal defenses. If this game mechanic is broken, it is simply because it reflects the same <broken?> mechanic in real life: if someone shoots you with a .38 special, it doesn't much matter whether you are naked or wearing a suit made of 5eR rulebooks. Similarly, padding that will protect you from a punch or a strike with a wooden stick isn’t going to protect you much from the slash of a broadsword. (Although a suit of 5eR rulebooks probably would, given that they'd stop a bayonet charge)

 

The "Stun Lottery" effect of killing attacks is a separate subject in my mind.

 

If you are a GM, you are free to rule that there are no Killing Attacks, but my prediction is, that if the Hero System makes it to a sixth edition, Killing Attacks will remain (nearly) unchanged.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I' date=' as the GM of the Paris game, was unaware of this bit of history until [i']after[/i] the Paris game was over.

It wasn't quite the same thing, Dan. IIRC the Paris spell was designed to destroy technology, thus rendering magical types relatively more powerful. The Manhattan spell (before you joined the campaign) was shifting Earth slowly into a dark dimension of magic; a dimension where technology doesn't work but magic is all powerful. The transference was very slow (it would have taken over a month to complete the transfer), but it had other effects as well. It not only converted every person with true evil in their hearts into a werewolf or other supernatural beastie (resulting in over 20,000 werewolves roaming the streets), but transformed the alligators in the sewers into fire breathing dragons (which our diminished-power heroes wisely opted to sneak past rather than fight) but increased the power of magic, making Thunderbird about 20% more powerful than normal when he joined the battle near the end of the scenario.

 

There is a reason I try to avoid having my PCs rely on focus-based powers, and that reason is that the price break isn't big enough for the trouble it can cause. When you lose a focus, it tends to stay lost for the rest of the fight, and quite possibly longer than that.

IIRC Cloud Dragon has the biggest focus on the team after the semi-retired Cyberknight; his staff/sword/sticks/bow multiweapon.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

This' date=' more than anything, is what makes Hero a complex game. It's able to do anything, and some "anythings" are broken in some cases. The system places the onus on the gamer to assess what is broken for their games, and change or ban these constructs. Other systems try to do this by ensuring there are no broken abilities or combinations, issuing errata and updating eitions. Hero relies instead on judgement of the gamers. Another reason Hero is a high end RPG product.[/quote']

 

There are some things that it tries extremely hard to forbid, such as the equivalent of Cramming a skill at an 11- level. You cannot use Cramming, as that only gets you up to an 8-. The rules are very strict on this: "he cannot increase this in any way." (I suspect that supernatural entities have threatened to feed Steve Long to rabid badgers if he ever caves on this one. Or perhaps Steve has vowed to feed himself to rabid badgers if he ever yields on this one.)

With the GM's permission, you could build a "Skill" VPP for 3+1 cp, but How many GMs will permit this abusive construct? It gives you far more power than Cramming, but costs less.

 

And what if your character concept is the "Jack of all trades, Master of None" who has all skills at at least an 11- roll? Doing this by the book either requires A large number of character points with NO upper bound or the misuse of a VPP that doesn't cost nearly enough character points. I find this extremely annoying.

 

Sure, there is the possibility of abuse in ever allowing a character a way to change an 11- or (CHAR/5+9) skill from one thing to another, but how many (rhetorical question) STOP signs are there in the Powers and Power Modifiers sections of the book?

 

3e D&D almost challenges players to find "broken" feats/abilities and feat combinations of same. When you find them, you get a powerful character. Hero goes the opposite approach - when you find them, you are expected to change or ban them to keep the game in balance.

Well, that is still quite a step up from 2e D&D, where, say, two thieves of equal Level and DEX were virtually interchangeable. Back then, the only good D&D games were those which ran more on house rules than book rules. Long before 2e came out, when I GMd, it was with 100% house rules. Some of my players called it "Dragon Poker," but I had another name for it.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It wasn't quite the same thing' date=' Dan. IIRC the Paris spell was designed to destroy technology, thus rendering magical types relatively more powerful. The Manhattan spell (before you joined the campaign) was shifting Earth slowly into a dark dimension of magic; a dimension where technology doesn't work but magic is all powerful. The transference was very slow (it would have taken over a month to complete the transfer), but it had other effects as well. It not only converted every person with true evil in their hearts into a werewolf or other supernatural beastie (resulting in over 20,000 werewolves roaming the streets), but transformed the alligators in the sewers into fire breathing dragons (which our diminished-power heroes wisely opted to sneak past rather than fight) but [u']increased[/u] the power of magic, making Thunderbird about 20% more powerful than normal when he joined the battle near the end of the scenario.

You did your job too quickly for the second power of Bloody Brassy's devices to have a significant effect. All nuclear power-plants were to have their energies converted to strengthen the overall magical field. If you'd taken long enough for that field to hit its first running nuke, Le Mage, Dorian, Prodigy, as well as all conscious members of the other team would have all gotten a boost. Le Mage and Dorian had discovered this part of the plan when you had all the crystals together. Brassy at least had no interest in empowering anyone who was not yet a student of the art--the sheep and the cattle were to remain as such. -- this, you'd get from Prodigy.

 

 

IIRC Cloud Dragon has the biggest focus on the team after the semi-retired Cyberknight; his staff/sword/sticks/bow multiweapon.

That does not surprise me a bit. I see it as a focus, and therefore describe it as such, even though it involves one of my least favorite limitations. Sigh

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Well' date=' that is still quite a step up from 2e D&D, where, say, two thieves of equal Level and DEX were virtually interchangeable. Back then, the only good D&D games were those which ran more on house rules than book rules. Long before 2e came out, when I GMd, it was with 100% house rules. Some of my players called it "Dragon Poker," but I had another name for it.[/quote']

 

Off topic, but this charge, levied against D&D for a long time, and not unfouinded, does have other views. I've gamed with players who took the position that the fact they CANNOT differentiate their character by giving him abilities, stats, etc. which differ from the norm meant he HAD TO differentiate through better role playing and bringing his character's personality to life. In his eyes, it prevented the character degenerating into a set of statistics designed to optimize wargaming (since you had limited options, at best, to optimize). I find that an interesting take on the isue.

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

One of the younger techs at the store is a D&D nut, and he says he prefers the level and class based system because it tells him precisely how powerful his character is in relationship to other characters.

 

When I told him he'd get over it eventually, he didn't seem to appreciate it.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

There are some things that it tries extremely hard to forbid' date=' such as the equivalent of [i']Cramming[/i] a skill at an 11- level. You cannot use Cramming, as that only gets you up to an 8-. The rules are very strict on this: "he cannot increase this in any way." (I suspect that supernatural entities have threatened to feed Steve Long to rabid badgers if he ever caves on this one. Or perhaps Steve has vowed to feed himself to rabid badgers if he ever yields on this one.)

With the GM's permission, you could build a "Skill" VPP for 3+1 cp, but How many GMs will permit this abusive construct? It gives you far more power than Cramming, but costs less.

 

And what if your character concept is the "Jack of all trades, Master of None" who has all skills at at least an 11- roll? Doing this by the book either requires A large number of character points with NO upper bound or the misuse of a VPP that doesn't cost nearly enough character points. I find this extremely annoying.

 

Sure, there is the possibility of abuse in ever allowing a character a way to change an 11- or (CHAR/5+9) skill from one thing to another, but how many (rhetorical question) STOP signs are there in the Powers and Power Modifiers sections of the book?

 

 

Well, that is still quite a step up from 2e D&D, where, say, two thieves of equal Level and DEX were virtually interchangeable. Back then, the only good D&D games were those which ran more on house rules than book rules. Long before 2e came out, when I GMd, it was with 100% house rules. Some of my players called it "Dragon Poker," but I had another name for it.

I wouldn't call 11- "jack of all trades, master of none" as 11- is still greater than a 60% chance of success and all it requires to rapidly jack that up is a little preparation. I always think of 11- as mastery, just not something superhuman or extraordinary.

 

However, I don't disagree there should be more elegant ways of handling omnicompetence and "omni-marginal-competence". I wonder how The Ultimate Skill will look for this.

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Killing attack combined with Standard effect rule? I know on only one GM who might allow it--if only for NPC monstrosities. Rant deleted. To my mind, any GM that permits a Standard Effect Killing Attack deserves a severe mocking, at the very least.

 

But that being said, I have no problem with the Killing attack's ability to cut through normal defenses. If this game mechanic is broken, it is simply because it reflects the same <broken?> mechanic in real life: if someone shoots you with a .38 special, it doesn't much matter whether you are naked or wearing a suit made of 5eR rulebooks. Similarly, padding that will protect you from a punch or a strike with a wooden stick isn’t going to protect you much from the slash of a broadsword. (Although a suit of 5eR rulebooks probably would, given that they'd stop a bayonet charge)

 

The "Stun Lottery" effect of killing attacks is a separate subject in my mind.

 

If you are a GM, you are free to rule that there are no Killing Attacks, but my prediction is, that if the Hero System makes it to a sixth edition, Killing Attacks will remain (nearly) unchanged.

 

What's wrong with putting standard effect on the Stun Multiplier for a Killing Attack? Just rememeber to make it 2.5 instead of 3, to account for that -1 on the normal 1d6-1 roll.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Killing attack combined with Standard effect rule? I know on only one GM who might allow it--if only for NPC monstrosities.... To my mind' date=' any GM that permits a Standard Effect Killing Attack deserves a severe mocking, at the very least.[/quote']

 

I don't see a problem with it, personally. We don't use the Standard Effect rules for the Body rolled, but we do use the flat 3 Stun Multiplier, and it's improved the game more than I would have ever thought possible (although not as good as making "Killing" a +0 modifier to Energy Blast).

 

... my prediction is' date=' that if the Hero System makes it to a sixth edition, Killing Attacks will remain (nearly) unchanged.[/quote']

 

Sad but probably true. I think the days of Hero System getting better with each edition have passed by. Now it just gets bigger.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I have been thinking about the apparent unfairness of Focus Monster vs. Inherently Powered Character. The problem is not that players will always make up characters which hit (or approach very closely) the real point value maximum agreed upon for the campaign. The problem is that there is no active point value maximum agreed upon for the campaign.

 

This isn't a new idea, of course. Fifteen years or so ago, when I played at Cal. State Fullerton, it was standard policy that new PCs could be up to 250 points real and 350 points (if I recall correctly) active. I'm not sure why that is not a more common policy: it would make threads like this one largely unnecessary.

 

It may be that the reason it's not more common is simply convenience. No one tracks the active point value of their characters. Perhaps they should.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Interesting idea. Lots of campaigns have active point limits for individual abilities, DC caps, etc. but I've never heard of a "character total active point" limit.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I have been thinking about the apparent unfairness of Focus Monster vs. Inherently Powered Character. The problem is not that players will always make up characters which hit (or approach very closely) the real point value maximum agreed upon for the campaign. The problem is that there is no active point value maximum agreed upon for the campaign.

 

This isn't a new idea, of course. Fifteen years or so ago, when I played at Cal. State Fullerton, it was standard policy that new PCs could be up to 250 points real and 350 points (if I recall correctly) active. I'm not sure why that is not a more common policy: it would make threads like this one largely unnecessary.

 

It may be that the reason it's not more common is simply convenience. No one tracks the active point value of their characters. Perhaps they should.

 

The problem with Active Point tracking is that some powers that are flavorful and narrowly effective, but hardly broken, can be hugely expensive in Active Points before limitations are applied... but don't break game balance. AP limits are often as much of a pain as a bounty.

 

Now... Damage Class limits or boundaries... these are great guidelines... (like for certain games I say, if you can do more than 14 DC without pushing, we need to check that power)... but Active Points arenn't so great in this area.

 

I do think a good check would be "how many Real Points did you save with focus (or any) limitations?" Ask each character that. When you start to see who saved the most points, you have an idea on the character that is AT LEAST more efficient, likely more flexible, maybe more powerful.

 

Points are NOT absolute measurments, but they are good indicators of where an issue might be. Real points, active points... either or both.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

The problem with Active Point tracking is that some powers that are flavorful and narrowly effective' date=' but hardly broken, can be hugely expensive in Active Points before limitations are applied... but don't break game balance.[/quote']

 

It's only one metric: you can't expect it to tell the whole story. But if you have both Real and Active points listed on the sheet, that tells you a lot more than when you just have Real. Naturally, you'd also want the three standard combat metrics: Defense, Damage Class, and Combat Value.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It's only one metric: you can't expect it to tell the whole story. But if you have both Real and Active points listed on the sheet' date=' that tells you a lot more than when you just have Real. Naturally, you'd also want the three standard combat metrics: Defense, Damage Class, and Combat Value.[/quote']

 

I see. We are, sort of, talking about the same thing. Compare Active Point cost to Real Cost on the sheet. Since, in my games, every starting character would be at the same Real Point cost (300, 350, 500, whatever) the only addition would be to calculate the Active point cost as well.

 

Hero Designer doesn't total up Active Points, does it? I still use the old, hacked Metacreator Hero, since it is easier and cleaner, and it will list AP for every power individually, but doesnt' then total them all. Does HD? (Cause I know my players won't do this if the program doesn't do it for 'em.)

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Hero Designer doesn't total up Active Points' date=' does it?[/quote']

 

As far as I know, it will state the active cost for individual powers, but not for the PC as a whole. Perhaps someone with an asbestos suit and a fetish for abuse might venture into the Hero Designer forum and ask if it would be feasible to add this feature.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Especially easy if the PC's give you HD copies of the characters, I would think. Take a few minutes removing all the limits on the character and see what the new total is. If you don't get electronic copies, have the players do it for you and bring you both "versions" of the character.

[incrdbil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

 

It may be that the reason it's not more common is simply convenience. No one tracks the active point value of their characters. Perhaps they should.

 

HD does list individual power active points (or hides them if you wish), but I don't think it does a total of all active points.

 

Not an issue for me, as I don't see an AP total being of any use. Some relatively minor abilities with heavy limits could easily cause AP bloat. I'm not sure an AP total would really be of much use for cross comparisons, and I certainly wouldn't bother to tell characters that they now have an overall AP limit to watch in addition to real point limits, then individual power AP limits, and DC limits.

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

As far as I know' date=' it will state the active cost for individual powers, but not for the PC as a whole. Perhaps someone with an asbestos suit and a fetish for abuse might venture into the Hero Designer forum and ask if it would be feasible to add this feature.[/quote']

 

And face the programmer's disdain?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

And face the programmer's disdain?

Despite Dan Simon's fearsome reputation, he generally responds favorably to reasonable requests. He incorporated my last feature request (for a date/time stamp on each character) the same day I requested it. I can't imagine he'd consider asking for Active Point totals to be unreasonable.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Not an issue for me' date=' as I don't see an AP total being of any use.[/quote']

 

It was useful when I was in a group which kept track of it, and, in retrospect, it would have been helpful in groups I have belonged to since, which did not.

 

I suppose people who routinely pile on fluff limitations would object to the practice, though.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

And face the programmer's disdain?

 

The programmer has responded to every Hero Designer question, suggestion, and bug report from me with much worse than mere disdain, for absolutely no reason. But there's little point in discussing that here. Suffice to say that, although I use Hero Designer and recommend it to others, I won't be asking for any features or reporting any bugs.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Off topic' date=' but this charge, levied against D&D for a long time, and not unfouinded, does have other views. I've gamed with players who took the position that the fact they CANNOT differentiate their character by giving him abilities, stats, etc. which differ from the norm meant he HAD TO differentiate through better role playing and bringing his character's personality to life. In his eyes, it prevented the character degenerating into a set of statistics designed to optimize wargaming (since you had limited options, at best, to optimize). I find that an interesting take on the isue.[/quote']

 

If having all characters of the same class and level be indistinguishable makes for good role-playing, how much better would the role-playing be if all characters of all classes and levels were exactly the same as each other? My telepathic sense tells me that you don't buy that argument.

 

I wonder just how the role-playing experience would have been different if the system had supported me when I wanted to play a thief that was great with traps, but no better at picking pockets than the ham-handed fighter, or play a fighter who knew just a few spells and knew the trick of picking pockets, ...

 

The system was fundamentally defective <IMHO> from the beginning, and the last time I played it, (3rd Ed) the fundamental defect (character classes) was still getting in the way, but much had been done to allow the characters a little flexibility within their rigid cages.

 

The Hero System, with whatever faults it has, real or imagined, at least allows the characters to be individuals from the very beginning. If I choose to play a wizard who is very good with mechanisms of all types, including locks and traps, but no better and hiding in shadows or moving silently than the average shmo, I can use the rules that exist instead of needing to ignore them.