Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Paragon

I'm sorry, but I can't agree; any character who is built around a vehicle as an operating prodedure will use it frequently, not just the power suit vehicles. Mecha drivers, your Jetboy equivelents and more. It's not an extremely common trope, but it's not as rare as you're putting on here.

In the superhero genre, the one where you pay Character Points for equipment, it is very rare. There are not many "mecha" superheroes. In a heroic genre game it does not really matter because most of the time the character is not paying the points for the mecha himself. He is being supplied the mecha. In that instance it does not matter what the cost of the DEF is.

 

And in most of those cases I don't see why the players should be purchasing the vehicle in the first place; it's a convenience for the GM, not a functional ability ot the PC.

In some cases yes and in some cases no. I would never make Batman pay character points for a JLA transport but I would make him pay points for his "Bat" vehicles; as well as his Batcave. Personally, I do not make characters pay for group items like vehicles and bases.

 

It's the cases where they do purchase them where I expect them to be problematic, and those are just the cases where I expect the costs to be relevant in the first place.

Well, as I said above, the GM is the person who limits the DEF of a vehicle. If the GM lets someone buy 20 DEF (and thus making the vehicle to tough to damage) then that is the GM's fault not the systems. Either way I do not see it being a real cost issue. A vehicle's DEF is not as versatile as a Force Walls, and IMO should not cost more.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Monolith

Well, as I said above, the GM is the person who limits the DEF of a vehicle. If the GM lets someone buy 20 DEF (and thus making the vehicle to tough to damage) then that is the GM's fault not the systems. Either way I do not see it being a real cost issue. A vehicle's DEF is not as versatile as a Force Walls, and IMO should not cost more.

 

And I thoroughly disagree; on the whole, a vehicle itself is far more useful than a Force Wall, and it's defense is an intrinsic property of that benefit. And it doesn't take a 20 Defense to be a problem; in fact, if you just use the resistant defense values suggested in the rulesbook, it will protect a character inside it long after any other defense would have failed them.

 

Now you _can_ patch the problem at that end by limiting the maximum far lower than on a character, but that's still only addressing half the issue.

 

The bottom line is almost every excuse made for vehicles can be made for automatons; it's simply not consistent to do it two different ways here, and while not a critical system flaw, it is a system flaw.

[TheEmerged]

Hello, Vehicle Def debate? Yes, Strength Cost, Kryptonite Man, and Linked have agreed to add you to the Legion of Things HERO Players Debate A Lot. What symbol should we paint on the chair?

[Paragon]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Hello, Vehicle Def debate? Yes, Strength Cost, Kryptonite Man, and Linked have agreed to add you to the Legion of Things HERO Players Debate A Lot. What symbol should we paint on the chair?

 

Break-dancing APC?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Paragon

And I thoroughly disagree; on the whole, a vehicle itself is far more useful than a Force Wall, and it's defense is an intrinsic property of that benefit. And it doesn't take a 20 Defense to be a problem; in fact, if you just use the resistant defense values suggested in the rulesbook, it will protect a character inside it long after any other defense would have failed them.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, but if you cannot see having Force Wall as being more versatile than a vehicle then I cannot help you with that.

 

The bottom line is almost every excuse made for vehicles can be made for automatons; it's simply not consistent to do it two different ways here, and while not a critical system flaw, it is a system flaw.

The difference is that players are not Automations, or are not riding in Automations. An Automation is an opponent or a Follower. It is not something which effects the PC in any real way. A vehicle does, and thus the cost needs to be more balanced with the powers the player will be purchasing.

 

I think you are just on a tangent, so we will just agree to disagree.

[Tech]

Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

I've seen some of these before but hey, why not?

 

Originally posted by Jeff

The odd changes:

1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.

 

I can go either route, here.

 

2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes. It was essentially a convenience on the one hand and a tip of the hat to a genre bit on the other - replaced by a need to concern oneself with the BODY value of the wardrobe. It's particularly odd when there's an alternative just sitting there - Shapeshift with limitations.

 

IMO, the new Instant Change reeks. Sure, it can be done with Transform (but there are some big problems with it, one of my players pointed out recently.) However, it replaces the simplicity of the first 4 editions of Instant Change and makes it tedious in it's explanation.

 

3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time. Instead, we're to buy basically the same effects with other powers - when there _aren't_ other powers specifically to affect size or mass - and take disads for the drawbacks - when actually using those powers and Always On would conveniently define those drawbacks.

 

I use the 5th ed somewhat reluctantly. I've heard Steve's explanation on this and only very mildly agree with him. I'll probably try going back to previous rules for these.

 

These are the first times I've ever seen Hero Games development deliberately do things the hard way - when the tremendous flexibility of the system trots out easy ways with all its usual charm.

 

Yep, then again, that what House Rules are for.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Shamless plug!

 

Anybody interested in a listing of the changes can find one at my site. In fact, thanks for bringing an obvious one I'd missed to my attention (Instant Change).

 

I got page cannot be displayed.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by zornwil

I got page cannot be displayed.

 

Blogger gets finicky sometimes. I just tried it, still up.

 

If the problem persists, let me know.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Monolith

The only time the DEF number of a vehicle really becomes an issue is when the GM allows a player to buy one as a Powered Armor suit. Any other time a vehicle becomes nothing more than a plot device.

 

Batman is driving down the street, the Joker's thugs shoot at him in the Batmobile, Batman loses control and crashes into a dumpster, Batman gets out and beats up the Joker and his thugs.

 

The Avengers are flying from New York to St. Louis and over Ohio the Quinjet is hit by some missiles. Thor uses his weather powers to create wind and help Cap land the jet.

 

99.9% of the time a vehicle is nothing more than a conveyance device. It gets attacked if the GM wants to advance the plot (Oh No! The X-Men are trapped in the Savage Lands!) but most of the time it is just a way to get from point A to point B. There is no real need to increase the cost of a vehicle's DEF when it is not a central point of the character. Those points are better spent on things the character WILL use 99% of the time, IMO.

 

I agree in part, same with bases.

 

That is why I have set up a house rule, using the perk "Membership". Essentialy you can pay 1-5 points to become a team, when you become a team you get access to a base and appropriate vehicles (This is what you are paying the points for, for one point you have a cave and a simple vehicle; for five your base is on the moon or a space station and you have TP machines).

 

Vehicles and Bases can still be bought, and for characters like Batman, quite common

[Killer Shrike]

Ive had many PCs in various games with various vehicles over the last 13 years or so of the HERO System. To my mind the DEF is the least of my concerns when running thier characters. The speed, turn radius, and handling of the vehicles is the more common concern; vehicles tend to be faster than characters with native enhanced movement because of the point rebate.

 

I cant recall DEF ever being an issue on the other hand. In fact, if anything, vehicles tend to be a bit fragile in the bigger picture when you consider that they dont heal; they must be repaired. So, any damage they take is a real bummer.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

Blogger gets finicky sometimes. I just tried it, still up.

 

If the problem persists, let me know.

 

It works now - good reading! I don't have time but will read more later.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Ive had many PCs in various games with various vehicles over the last 13 years or so of the HERO System. To my mind the DEF is the least of my concerns when running thier characters. The speed, turn radius, and handling of the vehicles is the more common concern; vehicles tend to be faster than characters with native enhanced movement because of the point rebate.

 

I cant recall DEF ever being an issue on the other hand. In fact, if anything, vehicles tend to be a bit fragile in the bigger picture when you consider that they dont heal; they must be repaired. So, any damage they take is a real bummer.

As a GM, I am happy when players can get to the adventure. I love for characters who don't have a reason to have hyper-running, flight, etc. to have an independent means of arriving on time. Players don't always help each other out and it isn't always a circumstance for them to do so. Sometimes, greater capabilities for Player Characters make it easier for the GM to set up a good story entertaining to all.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Agent X

As a GM, I am happy when players can get to the adventure. I love for characters who don't have a reason to have hyper-running, flight, etc. to have an independent means of arriving on time. Players don't always help each other out and it isn't always a circumstance for them to do so. Sometimes, greater capabilities for Player Characters make it easier for the GM to set up a good story entertaining to all.

Agreed.

 

But then of course the PCs get into a fight in thier Hexajet, chasing the villains, who are on foot in the crowded city......

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Agreed.

 

But then of course the PCs get into a fight in thier Hexajet, chasing the villains, who are on foot in the crowded city......

...and their Hexajet can't get into the upscale ladies department store.

[zornwil]

Emerged, great writeup on changes.

 

Maybe I missed it, but I would have thought it would have bugged you enough to mention it that Damage Reduction no longer applies to Penetrating Attacks.

[TheEmerged]

/* raises eyebrow

 

I didn't mention that? Hmm, I wonder if it got lost in an editting cycle or something...

 

/* adds a line to his "To Do" list

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Agent X

...and their Hexajet can't get into the upscale ladies department store.

No, but the flying sky-cycle might be able to, or the mobile assualt attack cycle, or the grav-sled, etc etc etc.

[TheEmerged]

Corrected. It looks like I must have chopped it off when I added the comments about Mental Damage Reduction, probably intending to reword them.

 

Also added a blurb about Summoning, a power I had purposefully left off because its changes are hard to discuss without violating the "don't make it so detailed someone could print this list instead of buying the prodcut" mandate Steve gave me.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

No, but the flying sky-cycle might be able to, or the mobile assualt attack cycle, or the grav-sled, etc etc etc.

Never said they couldn't but I think this business about vehicles costing too little is silly. I don't need to build a vehicle to min-max in Hero.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Agent X

Never said they couldn't but I think this business about vehicles costing too little is silly. I don't need to build a vehicle to min-max in Hero.

 

I dont think vehicles cost too little. I think vehicles cost about the right amount.

 

I merely pointed out that fixating on their DEF as an unbalancing ability was IMO missing the far more efficient purchase of movement via a vehicle. I mean, if the guy wants to stress about Vehicles in his game, he might as well stress over something a little more substantial than "my ride is durable".