Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Gary

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

 

Hey, I understand that

[austenandrews]

Originally posted by slaughterj

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

 

I'm with you. Lately I keep hearing statements to the effect of "I wanted to do X but I couldn't get the software to do it" or "X isn't legal because the software didn't let me."

 

Pencil, paper and rulebook, that's the real way to make a character. Computer programs are just a convenience. If they get in the way, ditch'em.

 

-AA

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by austenandrews

I'm with you. Lately I keep hearing statements to the effect of "I wanted to do X but I couldn't get the software to do it" or "X isn't legal because the software didn't let me."

 

Pencil, paper and rulebook, that's the real way to make a character. Computer programs are just a convenience. If they get in the way, ditch'em.

 

-AA

 

Yeah, I'm no luddite (obviously since I'm typing this! ), but technology has its uses and its limitations for sure, and I'll not have it limit my imagination!

[zornwil]

Originally posted by slaughterj

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

 

Well, that's a fair point. I obviously took it for granted people have access to computers and would be willing to use them for number-crunching. Sorry.

 

Still, I think Gary's idea has merit. Maybe there's a simpler algo to think about it in but achieve essentially the same goal, but I don't know. I don't have enough passion on this to mess around with it. However, if you think about it in reverse and learn based on each resistant defense what contributes (which most people already know) AND WHEN, then it might not be so bad. In other words, instead of learning the breakpoints by characteristic, learn them by break-point.

 

So:

 

For DCV - breaks on 2 or 3, 5 or 6, 8 or 9. OCV breaks on DCV+1 (presumably you'd want players to get a DCV point before the OCV point)

 

Stun - 1, 3, 5, 7, 9

 

PD/ED - 2 and 6

 

Rec - 4 and 8

 

Characteristic Rolls (to be consistent with DEX) - 1, 4, 7, 10

 

The INT thing is rather funkier...

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Gary

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

Then you need to give the players some incentive for buying them at other levels. Some say it's about role-playing considerations, but that doesn't really cut it. A number on a character sheet doesn't give the character a personality, even if it is a "inefficient" number, like 11 INT.

 

Gary came up with his idea above.

 

Here's mine which I posted already but no one commented on it yet:

 

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,...[/Quote]

[zornwil]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Then you need to give the players some incentive for buying them at other levels. Some say it's about role-playing considerations, but that doesn't really cut it. A number on a character sheet doesn't give the character a personality, even if it is a "inefficient" number, like 11 INT.

 

Gary came up with his idea above.

 

Here's mine which I posted already but no one commented on it yet:

 

I think it's an interesting idea. I'm less sure of it only because I would have to sit down and look at some of the actual statistical impact.

 

Even though I definitely am interested in Gary's idea, and I think your idea has potential, for me it's more of an academic interest as I don't see either as "worthy" (no insult intended) of inclusion in the core rules. However, Phil, right now I'd say I'd be more likely to incorporate something like your idea into my campaign than Gary's (Gary, as much as I like it, I wouldn't feel like dealing with implementing it, but would like to keep my eye on it in case something changes my mind).

 

What I do like about your idea which is more fundamentally a change than Gary's is that you have a great potential seed for managing better high-characteristic characters relative to skills. I don't know if I want to do it the way you indicated, not merely due to not knowing the stat impact, but also because I'm conflicted on whether, or at least to what degree, for example, a very high INT character with the base skill should be better than a lower INT character with the skill with several levels. But either way I have interest in the subject as I like to explore the hgih characteristic score ranges but equally want to preserve skill values.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary

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

True. This doesn't help much during character creation, but I often limit the amount players can raise their Characteristics during a campaign. For example, in one heroic campaign, I have decided that characters can only gain one point (as in a +1, not one Character Point) in any Characteristic at a time, and must have some play time or game time in between increases.

 

I also encourage my players (and try myself) to just assign Characteristics based on how strong or fast or intelligent they think their character is, rather than looking at meta-game reasons. There is, of course, no way to enforce this.

 

Instead of tables, it would be simpler and easier to change the equations slightly. OCV=(Dex-2)/3 and DCV=(Dex-1)/3 could match your example for Dex. I wouldn't want all of the Characteristics rolls to be calculated differently from each other, though. Changing some existing equations, or adding one or two new ones (difference between OCV and DCV) isn't bad, but adding five or six new equations? Nah! It would also start to infringe upon the consistency of how Characteristics work mechanic-wise; right now Characteristics are all treated kinda sorta the same.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've considered, but never implemented, some variants for point by point.

 

STR gets damage in 5 point increments as:

 

1 = +1

2 = 1/3d6

3 = 1/2d6 (no change)

4 = 1d6-1

5 = 1d6

 

DEX already has first action and CV

 

CON has STUN effect

 

BOD is already valuable point for point

 

INT - nothing special here

 

EGO - ECV impact and mental power impact helps out

 

PRE - as STR for PRE attacks, plus its defensive effects

 

COM: Well, one point's worth the same as any other here

 

ALL: If your roll (CHAR, SKILL, etc.) would miss by one, roll 1d6. If the number is less than or equal to your points over the breakpoint, you succeeded. So INT 15 rolls a 13 PER roll - there is a 1 in 3 chance he has succeeded since he is two higher than the 13 breakpoint for a 12- roll. "To Hit" rolls are not affected.

 

It means more dice for the various rolls, of course, but not for combat rills, so the world doesn't slow too much. I suppose one could require such rolls to be made with 4d6 (one a different color) to speed the process.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by austenandrews

I'm with you. Lately I keep hearing statements to the effect of "I wanted to do X but I couldn't get the software to do it" or "X isn't legal because the software didn't let me."

 

Pencil, paper and rulebook, that's the real way to make a character. Computer programs are just a convenience. If they get in the way, ditch'em.

 

Use a nice generic program. My template character sheet is in Excel. Not fancy, but it gets the job done.

[austenandrews]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Use a nice generic program. My template character sheet is in Excel. Not fancy, but it gets the job done.

 

I've done that in the past, but I gain little or nothing from it. The number-crunching is not the difficult part, and I prefer that the numbers not change around if I'm not explicitly changing them. Also, I need scribble room to hash out my ideas. I like to write down an equation every now and again and play with it, which can be troublesome in a spreadsheet.

 

Of course I'm an unabashed "power user" when it comes to making characters, so I'm particular about my tools. (After I created a witch for someone playing in a friend's FH game, he told me he was going to make a new rule: if one PC was created by me, they all had to be created by me. In the interest of fairness. )

 

-AA

[DangerousDan]

Re: Languages

 

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.

 

I thank god I wasn't drinking anything when I read this...

[lemming]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Of course I'm an unabashed "power user" when it comes to making characters' date=' so I'm particular about my tools. (After I created a witch for someone playing in a friend's FH game, he told me he was going to make a new rule: if one PC was created by me, they all had to be created by me. In the interest of fairness. )[/quote']

We generally had character audit's to help the less experienced.

[CorpCommander]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

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

 

Does that also go for the GM's created beasties?

[David Blue]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

There's no need for non-player characters to be built with the same system as player characters. Non-player characters are more easily and better built with exactly the characteristics they should have (regardless of break points etcetera) and percentile skills; again, exactly what they should have, no more, no less. Hence, there is no sudden jump from 8- (26%) to 11- (62%) or much better, like 14- (91%) based on a characteristic, with skills increasing in big, chunky jumps that are the same for everyone. If a villain should have INT 17 but only 44% with a certain INT-based skill, that's what he has.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

There's no need for non-player characters to be built with the same system as player characters. Non-player characters are more easily and better built with exactly the characteristics they should have (regardless of break points etcetera) and percentile skills; again' date=' exactly what they should have, no more, no less. Hence, there is no sudden jump from 8- (26%) to 11- (62%) or much better, like 14- (91%) based on a characteristic, with skills increasing in big, chunky jumps that are the same for everyone. If a villain should have INT 17 but only 44% with a certain INT-based skill, that's what he has.[/quote']

Well, I tend to build both PCs and NPCs based on what I think they should have and are capable of (how much they can lift, how they compare to an average normal, etc.). I very very rarely look at metagaming aspects such as whether Skill rolls bump up on a 3 or 8 or not (I suppose I might do it occaisionally if I have some left over points, or if I am looking specifically at a Skill, attack, etc., think it should be a little higher, and bumping up a Characteristic a little or something is an acceptable way to do that).

 

I think NPCs should be built based both on what they, "should," have and the approximate power level you want the NPC to have relative to PCs (especially if you are considering a direct conflict with a given party when building the NPC). Whatever they do have, I still think it is useful to figure out their costs for exactly that reason: to see how they compare to other characters, PCs and NPCs alike. Not necessary just in terms of Total Points; other measures are useful as well, such as the number of Powers and their Active Points, balance of Character Points between Characteristics, Skills, Powers, etc., total Disadvantages and their size, and probably many other metrics.

[Mike W]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Not sure if this was mentioned earlier, but the one house rule that I use which I would REALLY want to see a Hero Rule is that there is no "to hit" penalty for pulling your punch. Pulling your punch is heroic and putting a penalty on the roll only makes it harder for someone to finish off a weaker opponent without seriously injuring them. Granted, most people I've met who were Champs players went through one or two games, but I've never met anyone who uses the pulling the punch rules as written. You just spend too much time as a GM(sometimes anyway) getting the edgy characters to play nice that slapping a penalty on them when they do seems like a poor idea.

[Fox1]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Not sure if this was mentioned earlier' date=' but the one house rule that I use which I would REALLY want to see a Hero Rule is that there is no "to hit" penalty for pulling your punch. [/quote']

 

It's already in there, listed as a GM's option for certain genres.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Not sure if this was mentioned earlier' date=' but the one house rule that I use which I would REALLY want to see a Hero Rule is that there is no "to hit" penalty for pulling your punch. Pulling your punch is heroic and putting a penalty on the roll only makes it harder for someone to finish off a weaker opponent without seriously injuring them. Granted, most people I've met who were Champs players went through one or two games, but I've never met anyone who uses the pulling the punch rules as written. You just spend too much time as a GM(sometimes anyway) getting the edgy characters to play nice that slapping a penalty on them when they do seems like a poor idea.[/quote']

 

I agree with Fox1 - it's best a genre-specific modification to the usual rule.

[Christougher]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Only seen one or two comments about the jump in skill rolls. For a 50 pt game, I set skill rolls as follows, and it's working out well:

 

0 points: 7- everyman

1 point: 9- familiarity

2 points: 11- skill

3 points: 9 +CHA/5 min 12

 

This applied to pretty much ALL skills, so 11- lockpicking wasn't an issue.

[Christougher]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Elemental Controls: An EC is supposed to be a reward for a tight concept/powerset. What's the downside? In my games, it's that you take disads equal to the EC base cost which are directly/obviously related to the EC. (EG: Werewolf EC = vulnerability to silver.) Currently, this is above and beyond the regular disads for a character.

[zornwil]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

Elemental Controls: An EC is supposed to be a reward for a tight concept/powerset. What's the downside? In my games' date=' it's that you take disads equal to the EC base cost which are directly/obviously related to the EC. (EG: Werewolf EC = vulnerability to silver.) Currently, this is above and beyond the regular disads for a character.[/quote']

Wow, that's REALLY smart, sir! I mean really smart, brilliant in its elegance (that's the phrase I used in your rep award!). I mean perhaps the smartest suggestion I've heard, it's simple, it's direct, it's clear. Damnit, after years of searching, I like this even better than the idea of basing the utility similar to NND.

 

One problem I see, though, is that this doesn't account for the scaled advantage of the cost against many powers - but that's an abuse terrain at some point, anyway. I might fiddle with a simple rescaling idea, but basically I will take a very careful look at this.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

I haven't read all the posts, so maybe somebody else has said this, but I'm in the "There needs to be less system rules (Mechanics level rules) in Hero, not more."

 

Now, I'm not in the "reduce it to it's basic Axioms" camp. There does need to be a level of "Mechanics" beyond that... but it could be thinned a bit.

 

Most of the critical changes I think need to be made are not necessarily house rules, but core changes. No figured characteristics... or at least fix STR and other characteristic costs. No "Powers" built based on Characteristics, if you are going to make the decision to have Chars undercosted for whatever reason.

 

Things like that. I would also look at any "fixed cost" powers and see if they need to be tossed or reworked somehow.

 

I do agree with many of the folks on reworking Aid, Healing, Transfer, (Adjustment powers) etc. Some fixed cost powers have been play tested to work over time (original Regen as an example) and should revert to 4th Edition rules.

 

I would also get rid of the bizarre level of complexity that is the Skill Groupings. "DEX based skills are called Agility Skills.'

 

What the? Agility doesn't appear anywhere else in the game, but now it is a grouping of skills for some arbitrary reason? It is a level of complexity and legalese mudiness that is utterly unnecessary. DEX based skills should be called... oh, I don't know... DEX BASED SKILLS, maybe?

 

Thin the core mechanics... then add a great deal of Game Rule level guidelines and suggestions that help facilitate various play styles, genres, etc. (Like putting all of Steve's "gun-fu" skills into a genre bit, not as core abilities that are acceptable for every genre.)

[Vondy]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

None of my Astoundingly Cool House Rules should be official. I do think, however, that there should be an official option for more granular skill cost/development.

[Arsenal]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

If I were given the power to change HERO system - to create 6th Ed I guess - I would certainly make some changes. Bearing in mind, I haven't had a chance to play much of FrEd yet, my revisions are largely hypothetical/observational.

 

1) Aid and Healing would revert to one power, possibly with the increased cost retained. Regen may or may not return, it worked separately, but the new build doesn't seem horrible either. Personally, I'd rather give players a Lim. for not regrowing limbs, but that's just me. I'd probably retain the Adder for regrowth in the published version and just house rule it. (Query: I hadn't interpreted the revised Regeneration to restore lost STUN; Is that incorrect?)

 

2) Shapeshift would not be bought per sense. It's primarily a special effect Power so it needn't be so costly. Or perhaps it would be folded into the functionality of Images, since they work similarly in FrEd anyway. The 'Limited Power' family of Limitations is a wonderful tailoring tool! Also, Instant Change would be shunted to the same mechanics as Shapeshift.

 

3) I would seriously review the cost of MegaScale, though I feel it is a valuable addition to the system. (On a personal note, it makes me nervous, but that doesn't mean that no one should be able to achieve MegaScale effects.)

 

At a more general level, I would endeavor to improve the flexibility of many Powers. This would assuredly result in a lot of potential abuses (see below), but I have found that when I want flexibility, I go to HERO first. I realize that a GM can always make an exception, but there are concepts that are readily within the bounds of a given Power that are outlawed in the name of game balance. I don't see a generic system as one that should try to police certain abuses. For example, I don't feel that being unable to have any Dupe be the 'original' in the case of a Duplication character is necessary. Not having one can be abused, but not being able to define whether or not there's a 'core' Dupe limits creative character conception - or in some cases, forces points to be spent to simulate something that really isn't that important in some cases. (Transform Dupe to Core Character? It's ugly, but it could be done.) I realize a GM can always say "Sure, you can break that rule." But honestly, I'd rather be in the position of asking a player not to do something, offering alternatives, and working with them to see if the concept will work - or to simply point out that it's not an appropriate concept for the setting/power level/etc. Similarly, I would rather have the rules consistent - by and large - than be making exceptions to them regularly. (See Instant Change in FrEd; that's an inobvious build for the Power, given how Transform works and that it's an Attack Power.) Denying a character/power construction feels distinct from making a rules alteration/exception to allow one. I guarantee there are loopholes upon loopholes in the system anyway, so you're already on the lookout for abuses - and presumably, for concept-appropriateness.

 

I think one of the problems that arose with FrEd is that a number of rules were altered because of "squeaky wheels" and I'd hate to see further problems arise due to a countermovement. So honestly, my major revision might not be so much be in mechanics as in the advice to the GM. And the major piece of advice there would be: For Pete's sake, be willing to say no! If a build looks unbalanced/inappropriate (be it for the genre or whatever), please take up your role as GM and have a chat with the player. See what you can come up with that satisfies the players' desires without completely stomping all over your game. Just because a build is systemically valid and within the rules does not mean that it's a good character! We didn't put those stop signs in there to be cute, you know! HERO demands a greater level of involvement from the GM. In most systems, if you're well-versed in the rules, you can pick out an illegal or unbalaced combination in about 3 minutes (if not much, much less!) of looking over the sheet. Now a good HERO GM can do about the same, but the new guys need a hand. And let's face it, most of the veteran HERO GMs only read the GMly advice out of curiosity (at best), so the advice is really there for the new guys anyway.

 

Arsenal

[Agemegos]

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules?

 

For some time I have been using a rule of my own devising under which each martial art is a skill enhancer that costs three points and reduces the cost of each manoeuvre in the art by one point. This is simple, quick, and produces the desired effect of encouraging but not forcing characters to stick within their declared martial art.