Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by slaughterj

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.

 

Unless one of them has tunnelling.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Unless one of them has tunnelling.

 

Yeah, that's scary! First he has to know where I'm at to know where to tunnel up at, then once he gets the first two attacks (based on the scenario presented above, which he would regardless of whether attacks/mvmt were interchangable) and has gone back under, I'd move where he can't tunnel back up again to get me. The only difference is whether he'd still be present after the second attack, he'd still get both of them. If he k.o.'d you, there's no difference. If he didn't, now instead of getting to attack him immediately, you get to move (making it hard for him to do the trick again, which as noted, was hard to do in the first place), and hold a half phase readying to attack when he appears. And if you knew he could do this in the first place and was around, you could move to safe location and hold a half phase attack anyway.

 

All of you that present hypotheticals but haven't tried it extensively really should try it to see that it really isn't a problem, just like it isn't in Mutants and Masterminds and other games. Sure, many games allow more mutual exchanges of actions than Hero with its Speed-based turn system, but most people are within 1 speed of others, so that infrequently creates advantages, and intelligent play (pull phase to dodge, hold phases, etc.) deals with any problem that arises. For the situations where Speeds are grossly disproportionate, that's going to be a problem in and of itself for the slow character, and isn't particularly worse in a move/attack interchangeable system.

[TheEmerged]

RE: Allowing attack and then move. I disagree -- strongly. This only works if you have something akin to d20 Attack of Opportunity; a needlessly complicated set of rules, subrules, and exceptions that in my opinion and my experience with d20 reduces the game to trying to figure out how to get around them.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

RE: Allowing attack and then move. I disagree -- strongly. This only works if you have something akin to d20 Attack of Opportunity; a needlessly complicated set of rules, subrules, and exceptions that in my opinion and my experience with d20 reduces the game to trying to figure out how to get around them.

 

HAHAHAHA, TFF! All these years of me actually playing and running the game that way, and it works fine, but all the naysayers with only their theories and hypotheticals to back them up come out of the woodwork Try my method, you'll like it If you don't, all you're working with is conjecture. Tons of games allow move and attack to be interchangeable, without needing AOO, and they work just fine, and so does Hero.

 

But just to entertain me, why don't all the naysayers out there post all the terrible examples they can come up with as to why this is a problem?

[Delthrien]

The only ones I've really considered...

 

... as a house rule so far are:

[*]make both Power Defense and Mental Defense figured characteristics.

[*]make Killing Attacks a maneuver instead of a separate power and eliminate resistant defenses.

 

It's one of the things that I liked about the old DC Heroes game. It was generally presumed (even built into the rules) that a Hero was attacking to subdue, not to kill. Of course, you always had the option to go for the kill, but you would then lose the Hero Point award. Made taking things like Berserk a little more risky.

 

I haven't had the chance to actually playtest it, though.

 

[/list=1]

[zornwil]

Re: The only ones I've really considered...

 

Originally posted by Delthrien

... as a house rule so far are:

[*]make both Power Defense and Mental Defense figured characteristics.

[*]make Killing Attacks a maneuver instead of a separate power and eliminate resistant defenses.

 

It's one of the things that I liked about the old DC Heroes game. It was generally presumed (even built into the rules) that a Hero was attacking to subdue, not to kill. Of course, you always had the option to go for the kill, but you would then lose the Hero Point award. Made taking things like Berserk a little more risky.

 

I haven't had the chance to actually playtest it, though.

 

[/list=1]

 

It sounds like it's enforcing a genre convention that not all heroic genres subscribe to, that would be my concern if it were a system rule.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by slaughterj

HAHAHAHA, TFF! All these years of me actually playing and running the game that way, and it works fine, but all the naysayers with only their theories and hypotheticals to back them up come out of the woodwork Try my method, you'll like it If you don't, all you're working with is conjecture. Tons of games allow move and attack to be interchangeable, without needing AOO, and they work just fine, and so does Hero.

 

But just to entertain me, why don't all the naysayers out there post all the terrible examples they can come up with as to why this is a problem?

 

 

It's not theories -- which is why I mentioned the fact that I have in fact tried it, and didn't like it. If it works for you, great! Use it. It doesn't for me. I don't like having to have a list of 23 exceptions to a rule.

[Delthrien]

True.

 

Enforcing a genre wouldn't be a good thing for a system rule. I do think that switching killing attacks from a power to a maneuver could still work. I've always regarded KAs as more "character intent" than "system mechanic." If a character is intent on wasting someone, there's not really going to be much difference between rolling 12d6N and 4d6K. On avg., the KA will do the job a bit quicker, but an extra phase or two won't (generally) make a difference to the prospective corpse.

 

If I were to make KAs a Maneuver I'd give a +1 to OCV and a -1 to DCV -- the bonus reflecting not holding anything back and the penalty reflecting the desire to destroy being more powerful than the desire for self preservation...

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

It's not theories -- which is why I mentioned the fact that I have in fact tried it, and didn't like it. If it works for you, great! Use it. It doesn't for me. I don't like having to have a list of 23 exceptions to a rule.

 

What do you mean by 23 exceptions?

[PhilFleischmann]

Languages

 

Originally posted by prestidigitator

Dude! So I, as a native speaker of English, should only understand a little over half of everything spoken to me in English?

Eh? Half? Who says that you only understand half? If a plumber has PS: Plumbing 11-, does that mean that he can only fix a leaking faucet half the time? Re-read the rules on skills and skill rolls. For routine tasks, such as reading a normal book, or listening to a person speak normally (replacing a washer), a roll is not required. You'd only have to make a roll in a difficult or unusual circumstance, such as picking up a subtle linguistic clue that the guy on the other end of the phone is trying to let you know that he's been taken hostage without alerting his captors. Or perhaps as a bard, the king has commanded you to compose a poem on the spur of the moment about his latest military victory. Or perhaps you need to understand a text with very technical, or highly nuanced language.

The language costs make sense if you think about how much time and effort it takes to learn things in the real world.

Yes, they do, but that's not what the points are for. You don't pay points based on how difficult to acquire a skill or power would be. You pay based on how useful it is. Do you honestly think speaking Japanese like a native is as useful as a 5-pt combat skill level, or an extra DC of an attack, or 5 points of defense?

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....

And so would I. And I would also bow down to any person who can teleport 1" more easily than he can learn Japanese. Ease or difficulty isn't the issue. Utility is the issue.

[slaughterj]

Re: Languages

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Yes, they do, but that's not what the points are for. You don't pay points based on how difficult to acquire a skill or power would be. You pay based on how useful it is. Do you honestly think speaking Japanese like a native is as useful as a 5-pt combat skill level, or an extra DC of an attack, or 5 points of defense?

 

And so would I. And I would also bow down to any person who can teleport 1" more easily than he can learn Japanese. Ease or difficulty isn't the issue. Utility is the issue.

 

Yep, utility is the issue, but the extent of utility is dictated by the GM. Because it is easy to fall back on combat situations and PCs often like them, that's why combat-related expenditures seem to be of more value (i.e., have more utility) than native Japanese.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Re: Languages

 

Originally posted by slaughterj

Yep, utility is the issue, but the extent of utility is dictated by the GM. Because it is easy to fall back on combat situations and PCs often like them, that's why combat-related expenditures seem to be of more value (i.e., have more utility) than native Japanese.

That's true, but in all my years of gaming, I've never been in a game where Japanese fluency was as useful as 5 points of almost anything else. Let's face it: some things are just more useful than others. Is 5 points of Native Japanese as useful as 5 points of High Society (10+PRE/5)-? (Just to keep it within the skills area.)

[Xotl]

I might be the only one, but I miss Piercing. I felt it offered a great deal of flexibility that the current Armour Piercing lacks (although I'd keep both advantages: I see them as having two different spheres of influence).

[slaughterj]

Re: Re: Re: Languages

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

That's true, but in all my years of gaming, I've never been in a game where Japanese fluency was as useful as 5 points of almost anything else. Let's face it: some things are just more useful than others. Is 5 points of Native Japanese as useful as 5 points of High Society (10+PRE/5)-? (Just to keep it within the skills area.)

 

I wasn't disagreeing, I was simply noting that it's mostly the GM that dictates the particular value of skills in a campaign - a Japan based campaign would probably find the language significantly more useful than say a Victorian Age in England campaign (going with your High Society comparison above).

[Delthrien]

Originally posted by Xotl

I might be the only one, but I miss Piercing. I felt it offered a great deal of flexibility that the current Armour Piercing lacks (although I'd keep both advantages: I see them as having two different spheres of influence).

 

Steve long did an article in Digital Hero on variants of armor piercing and IIRC, Piercing was mentioned and discussed. I may start using it soon...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Re: Re: Languages

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

...in all my years of gaming, I've never been in a game where Japanese fluency was as useful as 5 points of almost anything else. Let's face it: some things are just more useful than others. Is 5 points of Native Japanese as useful as 5 points of High Society (10+PRE/5)-? (Just to keep it within the skills area.)

One of the campaigns I am currently a player in--it is actually a D&D game, but serves just as well to illustrate the value of language--takes place in a huge city in the Underdark. Most of the PCs started off as surface dwellers with no knowlegde of the languages spoken below. We wound up being incredibly hobbled, even with creative roleplaying. As some characters died, players brought in new characters from underground cultures, many of whom could not communicate with the surfacer PCs. The one or two PCs in the party who could bridge the communication gap became very valuable (and powerful when party disagreements occur). In these circumstances, I would say languages are far more valuable than any combat skills or other powers.

 

By the way, you don't have to speak with a native accent to be able to communicate fully and capably. One or two points spent toward somewhat related languages on a Language Chart (especially when the character has the Linguist Skill Enhancer) are definitely enough. Still too expensive?!?!

[Victor]

First and foremost, I'd nix the rule of Delays being lost at the top of your next Phase, for all the reasons stated above regarding attacking and moving -- that "window" needs to be nailed shut. You should keep your delay until your DEX in your next Phase, at which point you can immediately delay again (or you give up the new Phase to continue delaying the old one, if that makes it easier to understand). If you give up an action (by delaying) to go ahead of your DEX in your next Phase, you should be allowed to (but no multiple actions per Phase).

 

 

Second, there should be an optional rule for buying up the maximum for Healing. Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to use it, but the system shouldn't forbid it based on the authors' playstyle preferences (IMO).

[Gary]

Here is a rule that I'd like to see adopted. I already previously posted this in this forum, but it doesn't hurt to get more opinions from people who missed the thread the first time.

 

One problem with Hero is that certain breakpoints for characteristics seem to be most efficient. For instance, con should always end in 3 or 8 for maximum efficiency. I was thinking of gradually giving figured characteristics instead of a big burst at the efficiency breakpoints.

 

For Str:

 

1 +1 stun

2 +1 PD

3 +1 stun

4 +1 Rec

5 +1 stun

6 +1 PD

7 +1 stun

8 +1 Rec

9 +1 stun

10 no bonus (except for the +1D6 damage)

 

For Con:

 

1 +1 stun +2 end

2 +1 ED +2 end

3 +1 stun +2 end

4 +1 Rec +2 end

5 +1 stun +2 end

6 +1 ED +2 end

7 +1 stun +2 end

8 +1 Rec +2 end

9 +1 stun +2 end

10 +2 end

 

For Dex:

 

1 +1 Dex rolls

2 +1 OCV or DCV

3 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 2)

4 +1 Dex skill rolls

5 +1 OCV or DCV

6 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 5)

7 +1 Dex rolls

8 +1 OCV or DCV

9 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 8)

10 +1 Dex skill rolls

 

For Int:

 

1 +1 Perception with 1 sense

2 +1 Int skill rolls with up to 3 skills

3 +1 Int rolls (non skills or perception)

4 +1 Perception with all senses (not cumulative with 1)

5 +1 Int skill rolls with all int skills (not cumulative with 2)

 

I was thinking that this system could allow efficient characters with 21 con or 17 int or 22 dex instead of most characters having 23 con, 18 int, and 23 dex.

 

Thoughts?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Here is a rule that I'd like to see adopted. I already previously posted this in this forum, but it doesn't hurt to get more opinions from people who missed the thread the first time.

 

One problem with Hero is that certain breakpoints for characteristics seem to be most efficient. For instance, con should always end in 3 or 8 for maximum efficiency. I was thinking of gradually giving figured characteristics instead of a big burst at the efficiency breakpoints.

 

For Str:

 

1 +1 stun

2 +1 PD

3 +1 stun

4 +1 Rec

5 +1 stun

6 +1 PD

7 +1 stun

8 +1 Rec

9 +1 stun

10 no bonus (except for the +1D6 damage)

 

For Con:

 

1 +1 stun +2 end

2 +1 ED +2 end

3 +1 stun +2 end

4 +1 Rec +2 end

5 +1 stun +2 end

6 +1 ED +2 end

7 +1 stun +2 end

8 +1 Rec +2 end

9 +1 stun +2 end

10 +2 end

 

For Dex:

 

1 +1 Dex rolls

2 +1 OCV or DCV

3 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 2)

4 +1 Dex skill rolls

5 +1 OCV or DCV

6 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 5)

7 +1 Dex rolls

8 +1 OCV or DCV

9 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 8)

10 +1 Dex skill rolls

 

For Int:

 

1 +1 Perception with 1 sense

2 +1 Int skill rolls with up to 3 skills

3 +1 Int rolls (non skills or perception)

4 +1 Perception with all senses (not cumulative with 1)

5 +1 Int skill rolls with all int skills (not cumulative with 2)

 

I was thinking that this system could allow efficient characters with 21 con or 17 int or 22 dex instead of most characters having 23 con, 18 int, and 23 dex.

 

Thoughts?

 

I did miss this before. Wow, freaky - but good. I'm quite interested. I don't have time right now to drill through it, but on the surface I'm liking it. Very interested.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Gary

Here is a rule that I'd like to see adopted. I already previously posted this in this forum, but it doesn't hurt to get more opinions from people who missed the thread the first time.

 

One problem with Hero is that certain breakpoints for characteristics seem to be most efficient. For instance, con should always end in 3 or 8 for maximum efficiency. I was thinking of gradually giving figured characteristics instead of a big burst at the efficiency breakpoints.

 

For Str:

 

1 +1 stun

2 +1 PD

3 +1 stun

4 +1 Rec

5 +1 stun

6 +1 PD

7 +1 stun

8 +1 Rec

9 +1 stun

10 no bonus (except for the +1D6 damage)

 

For Con:

 

1 +1 stun +2 end

2 +1 ED +2 end

3 +1 stun +2 end

4 +1 Rec +2 end

5 +1 stun +2 end

6 +1 ED +2 end

7 +1 stun +2 end

8 +1 Rec +2 end

9 +1 stun +2 end

10 +2 end

 

For Dex:

 

1 +1 Dex rolls

2 +1 OCV or DCV

3 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 2)

4 +1 Dex skill rolls

5 +1 OCV or DCV

6 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 5)

7 +1 Dex rolls

8 +1 OCV or DCV

9 +1 OCV or DCV (must be the opposite of 8)

10 +1 Dex skill rolls

 

For Int:

 

1 +1 Perception with 1 sense

2 +1 Int skill rolls with up to 3 skills

3 +1 Int rolls (non skills or perception)

4 +1 Perception with all senses (not cumulative with 1)

5 +1 Int skill rolls with all int skills (not cumulative with 2)

 

I was thinking that this system could allow efficient characters with 21 con or 17 int or 22 dex instead of most characters having 23 con, 18 int, and 23 dex.

 

Thoughts?

 

It's a great rule in theory, but in practice, it'd be a major PITA. I like to have as much of a game, including character creation, able to done out of my head, and not have to refer to charts for such fundamental info, nor would I want to memorize such charts. Often I'll make characters when traveling, with no books available, and this would make it much harder than just using the current formulas for figureds, etc.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by slaughterj

It's a great rule in theory, but in practice, it'd be a major PITA. I like to have as much of a game, including character creation, able to done out of my head, and not have to refer to charts for such fundamental info, nor would I want to memorize such charts. Often I'll make characters when traveling, with no books available, and this would make it much harder than just using the current formulas for figureds, etc.

 

It could be done in the HD software, the MetaCreator software, or Excel, though. i've stopped doing manual HERO characters for about 10 years now.

[zornwil]

No offense, but there's not much here I'd want to see adopted into the core rules. I've become pretty conservative about that as I've gotten older, even though I use a lot of house rules still.

 

Re the EC thing I spoke of at the beginning, I do like the idea of HERO setting a bar something like the one set for NNDs in creating ECs, indicating vulnerabilities of an EC that could be exploited by even regular people with enough common resources and time. I think with this well-defined and in place, there would not be the need to specifically ban 0 END powers from ECs or to enact the "drain-one-drain-all". Both are taken care of. The ban on zero END powers stems from concerns about stacking defensive and some specialty powers - with a rules-based ability for even normal people to counter an EC, anyone will think twice about putting all their defensive and movement powers into an EC. After all, you couldn't escape or defend yourself then. The "drain-one-drain-all" is an overstatement of something that is NOW much more clearly discussed as SFX-based and not something that requires a special drain power alone to counter.

 

This all also seems more genre-correct to me for heroic fiction in general.

 

As a HOUSE (NOT core) rule, I'd add to this there could be a lowered discount if you wanted it to be tougher to counter. I'd go with something like:

 

Slot cost discount is reduced by 1/4 if agencies/organizations/governments could counter the EC with a little preparation and effort (but without resorting to superpowers or specifically having to create "Drain" powers)

 

Slot cost discount is reduced 1/2 if supers/masterminds with unusual abilities could counter the EC with a little preparation and effort but WITHOUT requiring them to actually spend additional points or resorting to a specific "Drain" power - e.g., it could be a "Change Environment" or "let's get Hyper Lad and Chameleon Boy to stand nearby Dopey Mammal Lass, the combination of their attacks will render her powers useless!".

 

Slot cost discount is reduced by 3/4 if it's just a specifically Adjustment powers only that will counter the EC. (Bear in mind, without the 0 END ban or the ability for people to reasonably counte the EC outside of this, it's really worth a lot less than today's ECs).

[lemming]

Originally posted by zornwil

It could be done in the HD software, the MetaCreator software, or Excel, though. i've stopped doing manual HERO characters for about 10 years now.

While I use HD, I still the ability to just cost out a character in my head. I hate having to deal with charts. Simple division is faster.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by zornwil

It could be done in the HD software, the MetaCreator software, or Excel, though. i've stopped doing manual HERO characters for about 10 years now.

 

Great, just what everyone wants, to have to use a computer just to generate a character

[Gary]

Originally posted by slaughterj

It's a great rule in theory, but in practice, it'd be a major PITA. I like to have as much of a game, including character creation, able to done out of my head, and not have to refer to charts for such fundamental info, nor would I want to memorize such charts. Often I'll make characters when traveling, with no books available, and this would make it much harder than just using the current formulas for figureds, etc.

 

I'm just a little sick of every PC character having cons and ints that end in 3 or 8.