Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary

For nonstandard autofire attacks, instead of charging a +1 efficiency surcharge, I propose the following:

 

Each hit after the first adds 2 DC's to the damage of the base attack. So a 4d6 autofire 5 shots nnd would cost 50 pts not 70, but 2 hits means 5d6 damage, not 8d6 damage and 3 hits means 6d6 damage rather than 12d6 damage. The maximum it can do is 8d6 with 5 hits, rather than 20d6 under the standard system.

 

I think the +1 efficiency surcharge is too little in many cases, and too large in other cases.

This might be dangerous. For NND, where the target gets no defenses to reduce the damage, it might make sense. But for AVLD, or Area of Effect attacks? No way. The Autofire rules, as is, apply each hit to the target's defenses seperately. That means if your attack just barely cannot normally get through their armor, hitting them 3 extra times isn't going to do any damage either. If you just add to the DCs, you are effectively getting a more powerful attack (some damage which ignores defenses), rather than multiple hits of the lesser attack.

[JohnTaber]

Most folks have mentioned these but...

 

+ Autofire - Add back in OCV bonues. I think the cost is fine.

+ Regeneration - Add it back. Worked fine before. Add the limb and from the dead options as adders.

+ Damage Shield - Pull back the cost to +1 or something in between FREd and 4th. Right now it is way too expensive.

+ TK Pull Punch Attack - Return to the old TK. The new TK is too cost effective. I think removing a striaght TK punch is the easiest change.

 

That is what I can come up with right now...the rest is great.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Converting killing attack to +2 advantage is an EXTREMELY bad idea. It would make it too cheap to add additional advantages. For example, it would cost 30 pts to add armor piercing on a 12d6 attack. It would cost only 10 pts to add AP to an existing 4d6 attack with +2 killing advantage.

 

I agree, just clarifying the original poster's intent.

 

Gary, I noticed you didn't submit the EC change to be just lims - are you waiting to try it in your games? Not asking for that debate to spread here, just wondering if you weren't quite espousing it as a "should-be system rule'.

[RadeFox]

Simple Enough

 

Str and Int would increase to 2 pts/1 pt gain, just like Con and Ego.

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

This might be dangerous. For NND, where the target gets no defenses to reduce the damage, it might make sense. But for AVLD, or Area of Effect attacks? No way. The Autofire rules, as is, apply each hit to the target's defenses seperately. That means if your attack just barely cannot normally get through their armor, hitting them 3 extra times isn't going to do any damage either. If you just add to the DCs, you are effectively getting a more powerful attack (some damage which ignores defenses), rather than multiple hits of the lesser attack.

 

I don't think it's that dangerous. An area effect autofire attack already has it's damage reduced tremendously because of the +1.5 in advantages needed. For 62 pts under my system, you get a 5d6 autofire area effect. Since 1d6 area effect is already 2 DC's, then each additional hit will add only 1d6 to the effect. For most damage ranges, 2 separate 5d6's are probably better than a single 6d6. This breaks down under very low attacks such as 1d6 autofire area effect since 2 separate 1d6's are definitely weaker than 1 2d6, but I'm not worried about such weak attacks.

 

For AVLDs, it takes 3 additional hits to add +2d6 assuming no other advantages are in play. I'm not terribly worried about it.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

I agree, just clarifying the original poster's intent.

 

Gary, I noticed you didn't submit the EC change to be just lims - are you waiting to try it in your games? Not asking for that debate to spread here, just wondering if you weren't quite espousing it as a "should-be system rule'.

 

I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with everyone in the other thread. I don't need a 2 front war.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Gary

I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with everyone in the other thread. I don't need a 2 front war.

Well, you would be a fool to fight a land war in Asia.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with everyone in the other thread. I don't need a 2 front war.

 

LOL

[Black Rose]

Re: Simple Enough

 

Originally posted by RadeFox

Str and Int would increase to 2 pts/1 pt gain, just like Con and Ego.

 

Not that I necessarily agree with this, but how about upping Str and Int to 2/1, like you said, then giving Presense some more oomph and upping it too? I'd say drop Comeliness, but I really like it, so it stays. Then, separate Speed from Dex and Calculate it as 2/1as well. This will give you all the basic stats (less Com) at 2/1. And give Comeliness some actual metagame value to justify it's existance. Maybe something like what was done with the Reputation Perk.

 

I also like the idea of skill defaults (though I wonder at the idea of a 0-point default) and would prefer a calculated Familiarity over the 8- we have now. I'd go with 6+(Char/5), max 10-, to prevent people with high Stats from overwhelming things with a lot of Familiarities. Oh, and let Skill Levels add on, though still to a max of 10-.

 

If I think of any more, I'll put them down.

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by zornwil

Why Find Weakness?

 

With killing attacks, I assume you mean you'd convert it to a +2 advantage, am I correct?

 

Re: FW. I already stated that I dislike orphan mechanics.

 

It is prone to abuses that exist nowhere else in the system. I've rarely seen it used in any fashion that doesn't make me cringe. (I'm allergic to cheese)

 

Re: KA. No. Advantages that apply damage to limited defenses (NND/Ego Attack) are more prone to advantage abuse than creating base powers of 10 ap/die that do the same thing. Making KA a +2 advantage is even worse.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure what I would use to differentiate punches and bullets, but I know it wouldn't be the current incarnation of KA. Perhaps a +0 modifier on EB that applied the body damage only on resistant defenses but did -1 STUN/die.

 

I can't imagine a GM would allow me to purchase a Nd6 EB where I would roll one die and multiply it by N. But if you simply buy a KA with standard effect that's essentially what you have. Roll a 6, stun Ironclad. How often do you figure that happens with 12d6?

 

$0.02

[eepjr24]

Originally posted by lemming

Well, you would be a fool to fight a land war in Asia.

 

And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

 

- Ernie

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Re: FW. I already stated that I dislike orphan mechanics.

 

It is prone to abuses that exist nowhere else in the system. I've rarely seen it used in any fashion that doesn't make me cringe. (I'm allergic to cheese)

 

Re: KA. No. Advantages that apply damage to limited defenses (NND/Ego Attack) are more prone to advantage abuse than creating base powers of 10 ap/die that do the same thing. Making KA a +2 advantage is even worse.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure what I would use to differentiate punches and bullets, but I know it wouldn't be the current incarnation of KA. Perhaps a +0 modifier on EB that applied the body damage only on resistant defenses but did -1 STUN/die.

 

I can't imagine a GM would allow me to purchase a Nd6 EB where I would roll one die and multiply it by N. But if you simply buy a KA with standard effect that's essentially what you have. Roll a 6, stun Ironclad. How often do you figure that happens with 12d6?

Hmm. I think killing attacks are pretty balanced. On average, they do a little less Stun than a normal attack, and a little more Body. It is true that they can do quite a bit of Stun, but then again, the most common multiple is x1, which essentially means your killing attack is going to do an amount of Stun equal to the amount of Body that gets though the target's defenses. Also, it kind of makes sense that if I hit you in the head with my sword I do a heck of a lot of Stun (enough to knock you out most of the time, even if I don't get through your helmet).

 

How is this an "orphan mechanic?" Killing Attacks are used probably as frequently as normal attacks, when you take heroic games into account. They are one of the two basic types of damage in the system (and, I might note, are much easier to deal with than counting both Body and Stun on one roll).

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

but then again, the most common multiple is x1, which essentially means your killing attack is going to do an amount of Stun equal to the amount of Body that gets though the target's defenses.

 

Isn't the standard rule D6-1 x Body = Stun of KA?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by CorpCommander

Isn't the standard rule D6-1 x Body = Stun of KA?

Yes, with a minimum of x1. This means the Stun done is x1, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5. Your normal defenses protect agains the Stun, but you always take at least as much Stun from an attack as you take Body. So if you roll a multiple of x1 or x2 (one of which happens half the time), the target is probably only going to take a small amount of Stun. Almost certainly less than a normal attack with the same DCs.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Frankly, I'm not sure what I would use to differentiate punches and bullets, but I know it wouldn't be the current incarnation of KA. Perhaps a +0 modifier on EB that applied the body damage only on resistant defenses but did -1 STUN/die.

I think this is a great idea. I came up with something similar but never really used it much. I think it needs a slight boost in the amount of BODY done. Say, 5's also count as 2 BODY.

 

I also like the "roll high" idea. I've heard this method referred to as "Target Numbers."

 

I understand those who want STR to cost 2 points (even though I don't use this modification), but why double the cost of INT?

 

My house rules that should be rules IMHO:

 

1) Healing can be bought with the Cumulative advantage to allow multiple healings to stack. Restrictions may still be necessary for particular genres/campaign types. This is why I allow Regeneration as-is. You only get 2 cp of effect per die instead of 3 in exchange for the Cumulative advantage (which is +1/2) so it balances out.

 

2) Languages should be priced like other background skills. I think they're way too expensive as is. If 2 pts of PS is enough to do that job for a living, then 2 points of language should be enough to be a normal speaker of the language. Literacy is free or not based on the campaign setting. In most modern-day campaigns and genres, literacy would be free with the language. Then you treat the language like any other skill roll. 2 points gets you an 11 or less (or a 10 or higher!) roll to accomplish a language-task. This makes you a normal user of the language. If you want to be a master poet or deeply appreciate the subtle nuances of great literature in the language, you'll need to buy the roll higher.

 

3) Adjustment powers can effect Disadvantages as if they were "negative powers." This can lead to some wierd, but useful, constructs, so it's important to make sure the concept makes sense. For example, a mentallist could buy an Aid to temporarily remove an ally's Psych Lim. A witch could cast a curse Drain to cause someone to have a Distinctive Feature. The evil Crippler can cause Physical Limitations. Some disads would almost never make sense to manipulate in this way, such as Reputation, Hunted, Poverty, but if a sufficiently creative player can come up with something that makes sense, why not? Vulnerabilities and Susceptibilities should be treated as "defenses" and therefore are subject to halving the dice of effect.

 

4) Remove Inherent. It's either free because it makes sense, or it doesn't make sense and is therefore unavailable.

 

5) Under certain circumstances, INT rolls and INT skill rolls are calculated by something other than 9+INT/5. In cases where specific skill knowledge is more important than usual, the roll is 10+INT/6, or maybe 10+INT/7, or 10+INT/8. These are cases when it doesn't matter how smart you are if you haven't done your homework. In other cases, raw intelligence might be more useful than specific knowledge, in which case the roll might be 9+INT/4, or 8+INT/3, or in extreme cases 7+INT/2. This would indicate a circumstance where, even if you haven't done your homework, you might still be able to figure it out if you're smart enough. One of the benefits to this rule is that it encourages players to buy INTs other then 8, 13, 18, 23,...

 

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure there's more.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Re: FW. I already stated that I dislike orphan mechanics.

 

Dude, your "orphan mechanic" (killing attack) is old enough to drink now. I hardly think it's considered an orphan anymore.

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by archer

Dude, your "orphan mechanic" (killing attack) is old enough to drink now. I hardly think it's considered an orphan anymore.

 

Slavery had been around for over a century before the Civil War and that doesn't make it a very good idea, either.

 

Nowhere else in the Champions do you roll one die and multiply it by another roll. It's an orphan mechanic, and it sucks IMO.

 

Honestly, would any GM out there let me play a brick, martial artist or energy blaster who had an attack where he rolled one die and multiplied the result by the number of damage classes? I'll even take a -1 to the die roll. It averages less damage than even a KA, how can it POSSIBLY be unbalancing?

 

And why is it that you can buy up the stun of a KA for a measly +1/4 advantage and you can't do the same for a EB? Isn't the Killing attack supposed to kill people? Why is there an advantage for making it better at generating stun but no advantage for making it better at generating body?

 

$0.02

[altamaros]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

I understand those who want STR to cost 2 points (even though I don't use this modification), but why double the cost of INT?

 

Check the thread about "how to boost mulitple KSs" it's better explained but basically :

 

Situation: youv'e got 5 points to spend and you want to improve your INT-based skills. which solution will you prefer ?

 

a) take a 5-point skill level "+1 w/all INT-based skills"

 

add 5 points to your INT; which gives you a +1 at all the INT-based skills and +1 at all your perception rolls and +1 at all your INT rolls (useful against illusions and images).

 

2 points for each point of INT is fine and balanced IMHO.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Slavery had been around for over a century before the Civil War and that doesn't make it a very good idea, either.

 

Nowhere else in the Champions do you roll one die and multiply it by another roll. It's an orphan mechanic, and it sucks IMO.

 

Honestly, would any GM out there let me play a brick, martial artist or energy blaster who had an attack where he rolled one die and multiplied the result by the number of damage classes? I'll even take a -1 to the die roll. It averages less damage than even a KA, how can it POSSIBLY be unbalancing?

 

And why is it that you can buy up the stun of a KA for a measly +1/4 advantage and you can't do the same for a EB? Isn't the Killing attack supposed to kill people? Why is there an advantage for making it better at generating stun but no advantage for making it better at generating body?

 

$0.02

 

Let's just take an example:

 

12 classes of damage, roll 1d6, multiply by (12-1); should be same cost (5/d6) as 4d6KA (15/d6) at 60 AP:

 

damage and probabilities

 

66: 16.67%

55: 16.67%

44: 16.67%

33: 16.67%

22: 16.67%

11: 16.67%

 

4d6KA:

 

60 or greater: 17.15% - similar, with greater possibility of much more damage (6.5% of 80 or more damage)

50-60: 13.01%

39-48: 13.16%

28-38: 14.19%

17-27: 16.30%

4-16: 26.38%

 

(numbers will not add to 100% due to rounding)

 

So while your argument may hold some water just in terms of the upper-end of damage, you are corrupting the scale and ensuring a greater chance of more damage. If you did actually multiply the 1d6 by the full damage class, it'd be that much greater. You are ignoring the 1/3 chance a Killing Attack has of doing x1 stun.

 

Of course, altering it to be (1d6-1) * DC, minimum result guaranteed of 1 gives you a better comparability though less fulfilling on the top end:

 

60: 16.67%

48: 16.67%

36: 16.67%

24: 16.67%

12: 33.33%

 

Source for 4d6 probabilities http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/4259/g_prob.htm - took that and applied the 1/6 for each stun multiple result, obviously x1 is a 1/3 chance.

[slaughterj]

As with my games, I would officially change Hero so that one could attack and then move in their phase (i.e., not just move then attack). I've run it this way since ~1990, and it is not a problem whatsoever - see for instance d20, where the same option is available and works fine.

[Chris Goodwin]

Uhhh, never mind.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by slaughterj

As with my games, I would officially change Hero so that one could attack and then move in their phase (i.e., not just move then attack). I've run it this way since ~1990, and it is not a problem whatsoever - see for instance d20, where the same option is available and works fine.

I think this is Hero's way of allowing the target a chance to retaliate. d20 does this through "Attacks of Opportunity," which is why characters with high movements can't get away totally unscathed.

 

Consider this: if I have a higher Speed than you such that I get 2 Phases before you get your next one, I could half-move in, attack, attack, and half-move out. If I can move far enough, you may not even be able to attack me when your Phase comes around. At least if I can't move after I attack I can only get one attack off in this way....

[Zed-F]

You can always hold your phase as well to disrupt that kind of attack pattern with a block/throw.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Languages should be priced like other background skills. I think they're way too expensive as is. If 2 pts of PS is enough to do that job for a living, then 2 points of language should be enough to be a normal speaker of the language. Literacy is free or not based on the campaign setting. In most modern-day campaigns and genres, literacy would be free with the language. Then you treat the language like any other skill roll. 2 points gets you an 11 or less (or a 10 or higher!) roll to accomplish a language-task. This makes you a normal user of the language. If you want to be a master poet or deeply appreciate the subtle nuances of great literature in the language, you'll need to buy the roll higher.

Dude! So I, as a native speaker of English, should only understand a little over half of everything spoken to me in English? Ouch! Why not just build up a good language chart? The language costs make sense if you think about how much time and effort it takes to learn things in the real world. I will bow down to any person who picks up Japanese to a fluent level as their second language (where English is native) faster than they can learn to pick a lock....

 

By the way, I have used several varient methods for fluency, depending on the setting. One I particularly like is, if fluency is not an Everyman Skill, then it costs 2 points to be fluent with every language you can speak (and your fluency with a language is at the same level as your ability to speak it). This makes sense because, as soon as you learn to read and write, it becomes a tool you can use to learn a language, so you tend to learn to read and write in that language right along with learning to speak. It probably makes learning to speak the language easier, even if there is more to learn about because you have to worry about characters, punctuation, spelling, etc. Of course, there might be some exceptions, based on, for example, the complexity of the alphabet.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

I think this is Hero's way of allowing the target a chance to retaliate. d20 does this through "Attacks of Opportunity," which is why characters with high movements can't get away totally unscathed.

 

Consider this: if I have a higher Speed than you such that I get 2 Phases before you get your next one, I could half-move in, attack, attack, and half-move out. If I can move far enough, you may not even be able to attack me when your Phase comes around. At least if I can't move after I attack I can only get one attack off in this way....

 

For comparison, try out Mutants and Masterminds, while a d20 variant, it still works the same way, but without the AOO, and works just fine.

 

I understand your point about the gratuitously high speed situation, but I don't think it's a problem, nor have I found it to be a problem after having run it that way for many years. The defender can pull phase and dodge (which would apply to each attack by the attacker, pretty effective), or have held a phase. Try it out and you'll see, just don't stack the deck against it with 1 extreme example - pick virtually any two 350pt published characters and run them against one another intelligently, and I think you'll find that things work out just fine.