What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

[Rkane_1]

Yeah, I said it. There are some flaws. Overall, I love the system and think its the BEST one out there for fine tuning a character and for FAIRLY realistic combat IF you use the right rule mods already published in the book. I don't want to get into a "Its perfect the way it is" argument so if you want to start that, please make another thread. What I am talking about are their any rules you would like to see changed?

 

For me, elimination of Killing Damage rolled the way it is. I think Killing Damage should be rolled the way Normal Damage is and then applied to defenses as Killing Damage. THis ends the Stun Lottery and makes one less thing I have to explain to a new player. Overall, I wish a LOT of the rolls for effect and the like would change to this system. Perhaps a "Count the BODY Dice" method for determining the power of Presence attacks, Mind Control, Telepathy and the like. One simple universal mechanic to help explain it better to new players. Makes it easier and less for new players to digest and easier to get into the game.

 

Any of you out their think the system can be simplified or handled in a different way? Chime in or respond to this thought, please.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I sit and try and think about what to change... and while I'd change some details (rolling Damage Shield and Regen back to 4th) I can't think of much. The KA damage could stand to be changed, but I don't consider that a fundamental to the system, no more than the change to Flash from 4th to 5th was.

 

I'd keep power frameworks, cost of characteristics, the speed chart, combat and the entire philosphy behind the powers system (costs in genreal and the split of SFX and mechanics especially) the same.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

What one fundamental thing would I change about the HERO System? Well, I guess it depends on how far down you dig into the game's core assumptions and axioms to define "fundamental."

 

If you dig very far down, so that fundamental things are things like "abilities are purchased with points" or "game mechanics are distinct from special effects", then I would have to honestly say that I wouldn't change any of the fundamental things about HERO. I don't think any of the core axioms of the HERO System (as defined in my own head) should be or need to be changed.

 

One step up from that would be categories of game mechanics, or broadly-affecting game mechanics, that exist in support of those axioms. (We're looking at execution now, instead of concepts.) By and large, I think most of these work pretty well too. However, there is one type of thing on this level that I would change. And since this is the most sweeping change I'd make, I guess this would be the most "fundamental" in the sense you mean it.

 

I'd change how the mechanics work for damaging Foci, and damaging inanimate objects in general, so they're more consistent and logical. Anything that has a physical form, from battleships to burritoes, characters to q-tips, should have a DEF rating and a BODY score. For inanimate objects (i.e., for anything where intangibles such as "will to live" don't factor in), the DEF and BODY should be based on the material, mass, and complexity/fragility of the object... not on the character points it has (or doesn't have) in it. Because as it stands now, Foci interact completely illogically with non-Focus inanimate objects.

 

For example, consider two 40 STR Hill Giants: Burly and Grumpus. Burly is walking around the hills one day, when he spies a human merchant on a nearby road. Burly grabs a nearby boulder from the terrain (5 DEF, 13 BODY per page 448 of 5ER) and hurls it at the merchant. The merchant is wounded, and Burly steals his goods.

 

Grumpus, on the other hand, carries a boulder around with him for throwing at foes... he doesn't just hope he finds one on the ground. It's still just a plain old boulder, just like the one Burly grabbed in the example above, but since Grumpus uses it all the time, he has to pay points for it. It's bought as an 8d6 Energy Blast vs PD, OAF (-1), 1 Recoverable Charge (-1.5). Since there are 40 Active Points in the Focus, and only one Power (the EB), it has 8 DEF (the AP/5) and essentially 1 BODY.

 

Why would one boulder be 5 DEF/13 BODY, and another be 8 DEF/1 BODY, when there is no game-world difference between them? The only difference between them is the game-mechanic difference that one of them was labelled a "Focus" and one wasn't.

 

To fix this, I'd probably make it so that "Focus" isn't a Limitation. Instead, a Focus would be something like a Vehicle or a Base or an Automaton... a Perk you define as its own little "mini-character," and pay Character Points for the privilege of having. This construct would then buy its own DEF and BODY, in addition to whatever Powers it provides its owner. It could have whatever DEF and BODY were appropriate for it, instead of those numbers being based on a formula assuming higher-point Foci to be more durable.

[Silbeg]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Ok, maybe these aren't a fundamental changes, but..

 

1) I would remove the concept of "figured characteristics". I guess I agree with Steve Long that these are an unnecessary complication. While I understand why they are done, the formula used make certain characteristics (STR, CON) underpriced by a large margin. Not sure how I would change them, but I know that there is something not quite right there. On the other hand, maybe it would be too complicated to change?

 

2) Body alteration powers (Shrinking, Growth, and DI): I would change these to just grant the increased/decreased size and/or density. Growth and DI are especially problematic here, and are the root of many munchkiny builds. If Growth just made you bigger (with the associated problems, such are reduced DCV), or DI made you heavier, there would be the reason to buy them just to boost your STR, etc. This is especially when Shrinking doesn't reduce your movement or STR, which one would think it should!

[Soleil Noir]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'd bring back "Always On" Growth and Shrinking for appropriately large or small characters, instead of this kludge they've currently got of trying to buy it all piecemeal. Is there an official party response as to why they changed that rule, when such an elegant solution already existed?

[Patriot]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Only thing I would add is a quik roll sheet in the hard cover .

 

But no changes

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'd bring back "Always On" Growth and Shrinking for appropriately large or small characters' date=' instead of this kludge they've currently got of trying to buy it all piecemeal. Is there an official party response as to why they changed that rule, when such an elegant solution already existed?[/quote']

 

I think it grew out of the problems in earlier editions with the fact that characteristics gained from Growth and DI not adding to figured Characteristics (which would be a pain for a non AO character) and if you buy a bunch of growth with AO, then your figured characteristics suck. Doing it the fifth way means that this difficulty never comes up, because you are buying the abiltities that you define as growth. Having suffered through AO Growth in previous editions, I find the current solution pretty cool actually.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

For example, consider two 40 STR Hill Giants: Burly and Grumpus.

Why one boulder be 5 DEF/13 BODY, and another be 8 DEF/1 BODY, when there is no game-world difference between them?

 

That is a good call. I never really thought about that one.

 

Another one I might adjust is to make damage from velocity consistant across types of velocity. I had a character who was falling in a game last session, and as he was getting to Terminal Velocity (which was ironic as that is the character's name too) I said, facetiously "I'm not falling, I'm going to move through the ground - that means I only take 14 dice and not 30"

[SuperKlaus]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

That is a good call. I never really thought about that one.

 

Another one I might adjust is to make damage from velocity consistant across types of velocity. I had a character who was falling in a game last session, and as he was getting to Terminal Velocity (which was ironic as that is the character's name too) I said, facetiously "I'm not falling, I'm going to move through the ground - that means I only take 14 dice and not 30"

 

Now what did Mother Earth do to you? Captain Planet cries.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

2) Body alteration powers (Shrinking' date=' Growth, and DI): I would change these to just grant the increased/decreased size and/or density. Growth and DI are especially problematic here, and are the root of many munchkiny builds. If Growth just made you bigger (with the associated problems, such are reduced DCV), or DI made you heavier, there would be the reason to buy them just to boost your STR, etc. This is especially when Shrinking doesn't reduce your movement or STR, which one would think it should![/quote']

 

So how many points should it cost to double your weight? "Behold the Mighty Mass of Fatman!" No, he's still 10 STR - he just weighs much more!

 

Seems to me this would be better accomplished by eliminating these powers entirely, in favour of a construct which purchases all the benefits offered by the power, with a Side Effect for the limitations. This would also allow customization (eg. Big Bob also gets +5 PRE for every doubling of his height, and RockMan gets rDEF with his Denisty Increase).

 

I'm not advocating the replacement of a reasonably straightforward power with a kludgy suggested build. I'm just saying that, if they only provide for changes in size and weight, that seems more like SFX than a power to me.

[schir1964]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Adjustment Powers

Make all Adjustment Powers have a default Target SFX specified at purchase. If the player can give some reasonable explaination why his power affects a mechanic instead of a SFX and the GM accepts it, then they take the advantage "All SFX Of Power Mechanic +2" on top of any other advantages.

 

But that just me... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[redwulfe]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Objects: This includes computers, foci, equipment and so on. the rules in general need to be reworked. I feel that they should all be perks. Take the base material (DEF/Body) add wether or not it is intellegent or not and thisis used to determine the base cost of the object then add powers. The powers would all be built with either obvious or inobvious and whether it is Acesable or inaccesable. This would determine the cost of the perk to have that Item.

 

... or you could do the base by the states of the item and then add a multipower pool to the device and put it abilities in there. either way I think it works better.

 

redwulfe

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I had a character who was falling in a game last session' date=' and as he was getting to Terminal Velocity (which was ironic as that is the character's name too) I said, facetiously "I'm not falling, I'm going to move through the ground - that means I only take 14 dice and not 30"[/quote']Point of order. If the character rolls no Knockback or Knockdown, he takes full damage (5Er, p. 391). Technically, I suppose, it depends on how many inches of Knockback Resistance your GM says the Earth has...

[Frenchman]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I would make primary characteristics more expensive, especially str, dex, con, & body. I'd around double the costs of all of them, maybe a little more for str and a little less for dex - I'd leave COM alone. Primary characteristics are very very cheap and very very effective, especially str and dex. Why buy combat skill levels or HTH attack, when dex and str get you the same thing, plus a lot more, for about the same price or less?

I'd also make the exotic defenses (power, mental, and flash) more similar - either have them all based on a characteristic (like pd/ed), gain extra derived from a characteristic if you have it (like mental defense), or be totally unrelated to characteristics (like power and flash)

I'd also make energy blasts cheaper, on par with HTH Attack. I don't think there's anything wrong with killing attacks, I like them (as GM and as a player). I just think they are more effective than EBs, and so KAs should cost more than EBs. It seems simplest and most appropriate to reduce the cost of EBs.

Thats it

[Ndreare]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I would not be happy only changing one thing.

 

1) I would change all damage to use the same mechanic (as the OP said). I do not think we need to have multiple different ways of handling damage.

2) I would get rid of figured characteristics and all the characteristics remaining would be streamlined in cost and use.

3) I would completely get rid of all skills and only use skill levels. Want to do a break fall roll. Make a DEX roll. Characters could then buy skill levels as normal. (In example a character would buy 10: +5 Stealth.) For skills with no defaults (read nuclear physics) I would make it were a character may only attempt the roll if they have the skill. Much like our current everyman skill system a GM would determine which skills are everyman. Most genre books would have it laid out also.

4) I would fix TK. As it is not I get an EB with continuous, indirect and the bonus power of moving things all for only 50% more than EB! Instead I would divorce the damage aspect of the power and have it only for moving mass, a separate slot would be required for damage.

5) Missile Deflection: Now we would have a Melee Deflection power. (No normal blocks do not allow us to turn the attacks back on our enemies or to others.) and Missile Deflection would be allowed to take AOE.

6) I would create a single core power for Defense that would replace the current three.

7) I would Merge Force Wall and Entangle and create a functional way to have them movable like 99% of the force walls I see in cannon.

8) VV.P.P.s I do not know how, but I would rework the cost of the V.P.P. so as not to make Multipower obsolete. I believe I have tried in my game (with success) making V.P.P. a 5 Points for 1 point in the pool power. Then by default all V.P.P.s were cosmic. From there a player could limit them as they would any other power.

A few of these are house rules I already use. The funny thing is I think HERO is the best system and have less complaints and/or house rules than any other game I have played.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Point of order. If the character rolls no Knockback or Knockdown' date=' he takes full damage (5Er, p. 391). Technically, I suppose, it depends on how many inches of Knockback Resistance your GM says the Earth has... [/quote']

 

Well yeah, but if you hit the ground with a fall, then it does 30 d6 to you.

 

But if you move through the ground at the same velocity with a 20 STR, and the Earth doesn't move, you take 14d6 (V/3 + STR/5).

 

Hence the need more a more consistent velocity based damage rules. And the joke. By changing the definition of how I hit, there is a 16d6 difference in damage - Sorta like Derek's boulder example.

[Dust Raven]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Why would one boulder be 5 DEF/13 BODY, and another be 8 DEF/1 BODY, when there is no game-world difference between them? The only difference between them is the game-mechanic difference that one of them was labelled a "Focus" and one wasn't.

 

Because the second boulder is really an unbreakable focus and the special condition to break it is to exceed a 13 DEF with 5 points of BODY.

[Dust Raven]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'm happy with the system the way it is. No, it's not perfect, but I do not require prefection to participate in an entertaining game. I'm not perfect, nor are my players, and I don't think it right of me to ask perfection of my game.

 

That said, I'd probably make Figured Characteristics no longer Figured. Everything is just a Characteristic. STR, INT, EGO, PRE & COM and all the Figured Chars would cost the same while CON is changed to 1/2 per, DEX to 2 per and BODY to 1 per. I might make REC cost 1 per and END cost 1/3 per but I'd have to think about, which I'm not likely to due unless I'm contracted to write 6th edition (which I think I've got less than a snowball's chance in hell in happening).

 

I'd also change to Adding Damage rules to a more consistant singular rule that applies to everything in the same way. Well, maybe not everything in the same way, but everything adds damage in the same way regardless of what it's adding to. No special cases and no need for a funky chart a smart player cooked up instead of the author of the rules (no offense Mr. Long).

[gojira]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

The artwork.

[Dust Raven]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

The artwork.

 

That's hardly fundimental...

 

Besides, considering what it costs per square inch of page space it takes up (compared to text), I think DOJ and its predicessors have done a fine job on finding art that looks good and keeps the cost of production down.

[Frenchman]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'd just like to point out here that I really like figured characteristics - it makes sense that someone who is harder to kill is also harder to KO - it streamlines the process of making characters. If figured characteristics were to be reworked, then characters would need an extra 25-50 points to spend on 'em, and that would lead to certain types of characters (spellcasters and energy projectors, for example) having an extra 20-40 points to spend on other stuff after buying up their END a bit.

I dunno, I just see a bunch of y'all naysaying figured characteristics (ok, ok, just two people, but I gotta assume its representative). I think the issue one might have with figured characteristics is that you get them 'free' and that isn't liked - I see how that can be a problem, but I think its better to increase the cost of primary characteristics instead.

[Fitz]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I like the idea of making Killing an advantage on damage, rather than having it as a separate power. I'm tempted to try it out in my campaign and see how it plays.

 

I'd get rid of Energy Blast and fold it into a generic "Attack" power, which could then be specifically defined with advantages and limitations -- e.g. Ranged, No Added STR Damage, Killing, NND, AoE, etc. etc.

 

I'd change the dice rolling mechanic from Low=Good (11- base) to High=Good (10+ base) -- I've found that for many people (myself included), addition is much easier and more intuitive than subtraction.

 

I too am in favour of going back to the old Growth/Shrinking (always on) to build big or small critters; in fact, that's the way I still do it in my own campaign.

[Anatosuchus]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Hmmm, I'd split DEX into Agility and Dexterity for a start.

[Bloodstone]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

Well, there are several mechanics that I think could be changed, many of which have already been mentioned. So I'll go in a slightly different direction. One of the things that I think needs to be looked are the terminology used in the books use. Some of it is just downright confusing or counter intuitive to new players. That, in my eyes, is a bad thing.

 

For example, "count Normal Damage BODY" is just a jarring, awful term to run into as a first time player. When a new player asks how to create a field of Silence, they look at you odd when you tell them to use the Darkness power. There are plenty of powers with generic names, like Change Environment or Ranged Killing Attack, I don't see why Energy Blast or Invisibility have to be different.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

 

I'd just like to point out here that I really like figured characteristics - it makes sense that someone who is harder to kill is also harder to KO - it streamlines the process of making characters.

 

I'm also OK with figured characteristics.

 

If figured characteristics were to be reworked' date=' then characters would need an extra 25-50 points to spend on 'em, and that would lead to certain types of characters (spellcasters and energy projectors, for example) having an extra 20-40 points to spend on other stuff after buying up their END a bit.[/quote']

 

I think any reworking of figuired characteristics would more appropriately address the values of Figured gained from primary stats, and include a reworking of the "no figured" limitation rto make it equitable with the loss of utility. DEX is the only stat where "No Figured" at -1/2 is rational.

 

I think the best answer may well be dropping the price of STUN, END and REC to the point that buying the figured characteristics up without buying the primary stats up is a viable and cost-effective approach (PD and ED unchanged since they blend with other defense powers). With this reduction in cost, they should also be declared "defensive powrs" so adjustment powers have only half effect. [i've worked the math before and posted a rough draft which would see STUN cost 1/2, END 1/3 and REC 1].