What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

[Oneway]

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 change the dice rolling mechanic from Low=Good (11- base) to High=Good (10+ base)

 

with ya on the "make Killing an advantage", think i might bring it up in tonights gathering.

 

i like wanting to roll low sometimes and high other times, is a nice change of pace then always "needing" 6s

[Dust Raven]

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.

 

Though I'm apparently grouped in with the naysayers here, I completely agree with you. I like Figured Characteristics and feel they are a great way to build logical characters. The reason I'd change them has nothing to do with that though. It's about how STR works in the system. No, I don't think STR is underpriced either, I just think the system as a whole would be more streamlined if STR costs the same as EB and didn't have any extra baggage on it. This would in turn make HA easier to impliment; HA would no longer need special rules for adding damage because it'd no longer be the same cost as STR with No Ficured Chars. And of course, if STR no longer affects Figured Chars by default, there's really no reason for any other Char to do so. The cost structure I mentioned almost keeps most archtypical builds around the same cost as they would be now, so there would be little difference in final costs.

[ideasmith]

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

 

And of course' date=' if STR no longer affects Figured Chars by default, there's really no reason for any other Char to do so. [/quote']

 

Still plenty of reason for CON and Body to affect Figured Characteristics. Especially Constitution. Or would you drop Constitution from the game?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Someone asked early on what is "fundamental". I think the problem is that any concept so germane to the game as to be "fundamental" would be difficult to change because it has many ripple effects. By that definition, I would suggest most of the items discussed fail the test.

 

Removal of killing damage, for example, is just a tweak. Lots of suggestions exist for changing it that have no real impact on the rest of the game.

 

"Roll high" instead of "roll low"? No real change. Now, if you moved from the bell curve to a linear system, I would consider that fundamental as it would seriously change the spread required to make a task hard or easy.

 

Renaming the terms changes nothing, really. Someone will whine about the new names.

 

Always on shrinking/growth? One little mechanic.

 

Removal of Figured - that's fundamental. One easy way to ID the fundamental changes? They will stimulate discussion/debate, because they cause a substantial ripple effect.

[Dust Raven]

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

 

Still plenty of reason for CON and Body to affect Figured Characteristics. Especially Constitution. Or would you drop Constitution from the game?

 

With the exception of the occasional CON Roll and preventing Stunning, all CON is is a group of Figured Characteristics. One way to look at it is nothing more than Figured Characteristics that together, provide you with a spare Char Roll and protect against Stunning. Still, I think CON actually does, or can do, much more than this in a game and is definately worth being it's own Characteristic... just not one worth as much as STR or INT.

 

As for BODY, if BODY were reduced in cost to 1 point per, whatever you wanted your BODY and STUN to be would cost the same as it would normally.

[Lord Mhoram]

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

 

Someone asked early on what is "fundamental". I think the problem is that any concept so germane to the game as to be "fundamental" would be difficult to change because it has many ripple effects. By that definition' date=' I would suggest most of the items discussed fail the test. [/quote']

 

True.

My only complaints with the system are are minor things.

[SCUBA Hero]

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

 

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).

Oops, I missed that.

 

Even better; do a zero-STR Move-Through for only 10d6!

[Dust Raven]

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

 

Oops, I missed that.

 

Even better; do a zero-STR Move-Through for only 10d6!

 

It there wasn't a section for falling damage, a zero STR move through is exactly what you'd be doing. It would be like you were flying at that speed and hit an invisible wall. Take all velocity damage with no STR behind it.

 

Of course, there's always the possibility the Earth only has a SPD of 4, and has 90" Flight UAA Gradual Effect with some generic "gravity" limitation (probably a -1), so it ends up that uncontrolled move through you are doing really does calculate to 30d6.

[keithcurtis]

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

 

Eliminate figured characteristics. You could use the current formulas as guidelines, but buy them up from a default.

 

Reduce the number of subsytems. We have:

Rolling Normal Damage

Rolling Killing Damage

Characteristics Rolls

Characteristic contests

To hit rolls

Many different skill cost structures.

Comparison rolls (such as many mental powers and Pre attacks)

 

and I'm sure there are more.

Reduce the number of these. Aim for:

 

1) One resolution mechanic for success/failure:

To hit

Skill rolls

Cha Rolls

 

2 ) One resolution mechanic for effect:

Damage

degree of effectiveness

 

But this is mere speculation. I'm pretty happy with the way things are.

 

Keith "maybe base it on a d12..." Curtis

[mattingly]

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

 

But if you move through the ground at the same velocity with a 20 STR' date=' and the Earth doesn't move, you take 14d6 (V/3 + STR/5).[/quote']That would mean that stronger characters take more damage from falls. I prefer to look at it the other way. The Earth is doing a move through on you. The Earth's 100 STR adds 20d6 to your velocity differential of 30" (10d6).

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Aim for:

 

1) One resolution mechanic for success/failure:

To hit

Skill rolls

Cha Rolls

 

Hmmm...let's base it on a d20. We could call it, say, d20. That's not taken, is it?

[Rkane_1]

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

 

Hmmm...let's base it on a d20. We could call it' date=' say, d20. That's not taken, is it? [/quote']

 

Ack...the differences would be STAGGERING. Thats like saying simplifying the Democracy our nation runs on would mean going back to a Medieval structure of fealty.

 

You could still do all that the poster said, simplify the system (making it easier for new players to understand and speeding the overall gaming process) and still have a VERY different system from D20. The main good things about the system would still be preserved

 

-Point based allocation 9Allowing near endless combinations of character types) vs level/class based

-Skill-based characters vs class based

-An awesome Power system allowing nearly any power imaginable

 

D20 is limited EXTREMELY limited in the way it works and allows yopu to make characters with individuality. Although its combat system has improved, its sytem for character generation is ultimately where it will always fall short.

 

These are some fundamental things about Champions I would NEVER change, but D20 compares to Hero (simplified and otherwise) the same way Cafeteria Meatloaf compares to USDA Grade A Medium Rare Steak.

 

Sorry to say it, but simplification of these sort would only benefit the system if done intelligently. It would make the system more "User friendly" and still retain the things that make Hero great.

 

But,...I digress.

[Rkane_1]

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

 

Well, now that I have labelled myself a heretic...

 

Hmmmm...I would Double STR cost. Hand Attack would be five points per and top out at double the STR in DC the way Killing Attack does now.

 

Figured Characteristics would double in cost but the figured characteristic would figured to be higher (Example: PD = STR/2.5 but costs 2 per) this would also make certain Defensive powers more expensive, of course. SPD = Dex/5 and cost 20 pts per This would mean less point tweaking on figured stats and more reliance on higher base characteristics. Why, I think its more "realistic but still offers the ability to have higher figured stats.

 

Killing attacks would be a +1/2 Advantage to Normal Damage and be counted as Normal Damage and BODY but be counted against defenses the way it is now.

 

Skills would work like OCV/DCV with DCV being the difficulty of the task at hand.

 

Mental Illusions would work against INT rather than Ego.

 

Mental Awareness would not be an automatic part of every Mental Power, just another sense to buy for a well-rounded character the way Sense Heat can be bought for a Fire-Based Character.

 

EGO would be figured into STUN and STUN resistance instead of JUST the physical characteristics OR a new methgod would be prepared to spend the points like in White Wolf (Yes, I know....blasphemy mentioning their name here but I am a heretic) for extra Stun, Endurance or added damage to attacks. More importance would be given to it so its not just something mentalists buy but also helps represent a disciplined mind, and iron will, or a driven psyche. This would intern mean mentalist characters stop walking over everyone else unless they specifically spend points in Mental defense.

 

The things I think are the MOST important things to keep:

 

The point based system and the ability to fine tune a character. Though I may actually resort to a +.1 and +.25 system rather than just +1/2 or +1/4 for FINER fine tuning.

 

I would refine Elemental Control as I think its overly complicated and is too great a cost break for not enough disadvantage (My suggestion is a -1 limitation for the EC powers provided you buy a power with a "Control cost" equal to the power with highest Active Points in the EC with that EC Mod on it PLUS any Limitations that effect all powers in the EC . Its very similar to Standard EC BUT it would allow you to buy powers BELOW the Active Cost and get a decent break on them, allow smaller powers to be purchased and built up, ...that and I would insist also on certain disads being bought to reflect how in tune the character is with that element, hence being a disadvantage (fire for cold/ice characters) equal to half the Active Cost of the of the Control Cost. So if you had 60 Active Points in say a FIRE EC, then you might suffer from a Vuln or Susceptibility or combination thereof worth 30 points.)

 

Presence would stay the same but EGO would be the only defense for it. PRE would be able to attack only and COM would be double and you could attack with it as well for Seduction or Persuasion. Ego would be the Stat used to resist temptation and INT to resist trickery.

 

Hmmmm....have I managed to leave anything untouched by the scalpel.

 

*RKane_1 takes cover for the inevitable onslaught of HERO fanatics. He's one himself but its hard attacking himself*

[Ndreare]

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

 

I have done a little thinking and I think I would get rid of the players. I have noticed that all the players do is break this perfect system. All their complaining about broken arch types and too many dice. What a bunch of jerks.

[Rkane_1]

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

 

Oh please. Like I said. if you think the system is perfect, find another thread. This is an open discussion on fundamental changes. If you think its perfect then go blissfully into the night content with your perfect system. So, you have NO house rules and accept everything out of the book as cannon without modification? In that case, congrats. You don't need more, have fun and be well on your journey. Discuss change or if you fear it, run along. *smile*

[Lord Mhoram]

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

 

That would mean that stronger characters take more damage from falls. I prefer to look at it the other way. The Earth is doing a move through on you. The Earth's 100 STR adds 20d6 to your velocity differential of 30" (10d6).

 

That was basically what the GM said when I actually spoke my hairbrained idea outloud. I, of course, was not serious.

But one of my teammates caught me so it was okay.

[Lucius]

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

 

I'm surprised and very pleased at the number of people who agree with me that the current system of Normal/Killing Damage is problematic.

 

To those who would make Killing an Advantage, however, I have a suggestion: make it an Adder instead.

 

If you look at the relationship between Resistant Defense, and Nonresistant Defense, it's more like an Adder set at 50% of the base cost than it is like a +1/2 Advantage.

 

See the discussion here:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43202&highlight=killing+epiphany

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ponders the question "what is fundamental?"

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Ack...the differences would be STAGGERING. Thats like saying simplifying the Democracy our nation runs on would mean going back to a Medieval structure of fealty.

 

I provided one example of a game which has adopted a standard "one mechanic to determine success and failure". Are you aware of any other game systems which have a similar "one mechanic determines success or failure" structure? I suspect there are lots out there. Basic Role Playing has the % skill system and uses combat skills to determine whether an atttack hits, and whether it is parried or dodged. Marvel Supers (TSR) used the FEAT chart for everything. WEG Star Wars used the "roll X number of D6's and compare the totals" system. Mayfair's DC Heroes had a universal task resolution which determined success and degree of success in a single roll.

 

You could still do all that the poster said' date=' simplify the system (making it easier for new players to understand and speeding the overall gaming process) and still have a VERY different system from D20. The main good things about the system would still be preserved[/quote']

 

It could certainly be done. Many games have done it.

 

-Point based allocation 9Allowing near endless combinations of character types) vs level/class based

-Skill-based characters vs class based

-An awesome Power system allowing nearly any power imaginable

 

These strengths are described by some naysayyers as weaknesses. They make the system too math-intensive, they will tell you. Players flounder under the weight of all the options, with no guidance. All that flexibility means there are many broken concepts. You aren't going to get a system - ANY system - which will match everyone's "perfect vision".

 

Sorry to say it' date=' but simplification of these sort would only benefit the system if done intelligently. It would make the system more "User friendly" and still retain the things that make Hero great.[/quote']

 

No need to be sorry, IMO. That is the key difficulty - making a fundamental change whose ripple effects don't cause issues as more more problematic than those they solve.

[nexus]

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.

 

Very intriuging idea and something that would be worth looking into. One thing I've run into is the pure efficency of Dexterity. It factors into some so much, like many skills that it leads to it being artficially inflated (IMO) because its simply more point efficent that skills or skill levels. So you get odd situations like the "Theif" of the party is one of the best, if not the best fighter as well. Combat Value wise. I'd almost consider adding another primary characteristic that reflected manual dexterity and hand eye coordination and let "Dexterity" define grace and overall agility. Or maybe make some skills based on an Average of Dexterity or Intellect... or something...

[nexus]

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

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Wasn't some of the reason because you could technicaly Drain the shrinking from a Mouse and end up with a human sized mouse that wasn't any stronger? (But Inherent sort of takes care of that).

 

Personally, I'd give Growth some more perks since as it currently stands, Shrinking seems the better deal.

[Kabluey]

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

 

I agree with what others have said about Killing Damage, but only because I have a few players in my group that seem to have no ability to grasp the differences. I haven't adopted any of the suggest house rules on the topic (though the Advantage actually appeals to me), but a more streamlined system would be nicer. The STUN lotto aspect doesn't bother me, though, ever since I moved to the Hit Locations chart.

 

I'd also change adjustment caps. I'm not sure the best alternative (I have given the topic quite a bit of thought), but I just don't like the amount of recordkeeping the current system requires. (I realize, btw, that this is not a fundamental change, but it's a big deal for me.)

 

The other big thing I'd change is increasing the gradiant for stats with heroic-level characters. A range of 10-20 just seems too small, given that it takes only 10 points for a character to reach the upper limit of human STR, for example. With 150 points, I can't ever see building a fighter with less than 20 STR and most likely a 20 CON and BODY or DEX as well. Solutions could range anywhere from a more mundane lower of Normal Characteristic Maxima to 15 to perhaps a more radical increasing cost of stats a la GURPS.

[Hyper-Man]

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

 

I agree with what others have said about Killing Damage, but only because I have a few players in my group that seem to have no ability to grasp the differences. I haven't adopted any of the suggest house rules on the topic (though the Advantage actually appeals to me), but a more streamlined system would be nicer. The STUN lotto aspect doesn't bother me, though, ever since I moved to the Hit Locations chart.

 

I'd also change adjustment caps. I'm not sure the best alternative (I have given the topic quite a bit of thought), but I just don't like the amount of recordkeeping the current system requires. (I realize, btw, that this is not a fundamental change, but it's a big deal for me.)

 

The other big thing I'd change is increasing the gradiant for stats with heroic-level characters. A range of 10-20 just seems too small, given that it takes only 10 points for a character to reach the upper limit of human STR, for example. With 150 points, I can't ever see building a fighter with less than 20 STR and most likely a 20 CON and BODY or DEX as well. Solutions could range anywhere from a more mundane lower of Normal Characteristic Maxima to 15 to perhaps a more radical increasing cost of stats a la GURPS.

 

One minor correction regarding this common misconception.

 

20 is not the upper human limit. 30 is. 20 is the limit before x2 cost applies. 30 is the hard limit for normal humans. 31 and higher is in the super-human range.

[Lord Mhoram]

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

 

Wasn't some of the reason because you could technicaly Drain the shrinking from a Mouse and end up with a human sized mouse that wasn't any stronger? (But Inherent sort of takes care of that).

.

 

Yep. That too.

In my games that was never really an issue, but the other stuff was, so that came to mind first.

[Lord Mhoram]

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

 

One minor correction regarding this common misconception.

 

20 is not the upper human limit. 30 is. 20 is the limit before x2 cost applies. 30 is the hard limit for normal humans. 31 and higher is in the super-human range.

 

And that is the way it is in the Champs Universe, but there is really no hard cap at all. If the strongman barbarian in the Fantasy group wants to spend that much on his Str he could go to 35. Nothing against that in the rules - the "hard cap" is a setting thing.

[Kabluey]

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

 

One minor correction regarding this common misconception.

 

20 is not the upper human limit. 30 is. 20 is the limit before x2 cost applies. 30 is the hard limit for normal humans. 31 and higher is in the super-human range.

 

Really? The current weightlifting record (according to Wikipedia) is 472 kg, whereas a 30 STR is nearly 4 times this much (1600 kg). This is the normal human max? Those weightlifters are all wimps!

 

If 30 is meant to be the cap, then perhaps the STR table just needs to be adjusted. The other stats one could easily accept as capping at 30, since they have no specific correlation to measurable performance.