How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

[knightwriter]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Hey' date=' just let me know when you come down in the area. We can always throw together a game.[/quote']

 

Thanks! I really appreciate it and will have to make a point to get out of the Northern Woods for a few days.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Overall, I'm not a fan of the D&D/PAthfinder mechanics regardless of edition. However, I've found some amazing game worlds that have been created for them. There are aspects of the system that I enjoyed (feats, prestige classes, etc.) but I've found that they work much better for me when converted over to Hero System.

 

That being said, I'm currently running several games in the Pathfinder setting with a heavily house ruled Rolemaster system that now includes feats and prestige classes.

 

Mechanics wise, I think i would have to settle with 2/2.5 as the most enjoyable of all. I would have to say that with the 3.x edition, it went a tad overboard with the sheer number of feats that were introduced.

[Fearghus]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Is it just scoffed at for being a simple game?

 

Actually I think just the opposite. D&D is too complicated. This spell counters that spell but not that other one. You want an ability that is only in a specific prestige class so you have to build your character in advance before to reach your max level... plan every level, feat, and skill at character creation or face being behind the power curve compared to the other players and the monsters you will face.

 

All that being said I have a HUGE LIST of other things I hate about D&D.

 

Why is it that in order to be a master crafts man (Expert 20th level) you have to kill stuff to earn experience in your craft?

 

Why can a fighter of any respectable level do a swan dive off of a 100' high cliff rather than waste the time climbing down... stand up... dust himself off and go kill a couple hundred kobolds and walk away with only minor injuries?

 

Why is it that a 5th level fighter who is specialized in an exotic weapon is actually worse at using it than any 20th level magic user who has probably never even laid a hand on the weapon?

 

Why are shields so worthless? Anyone who has actually trained with a weapon and shield know that the shield is the piece of armor that soaks up almost every single hit you would otherwise have taken. It's should certainly be worth more than a +1 to AC.

 

Speaking of armor by the time you are of a level that you are facing high level fighters and monsters you might as well not wear armor at all because similar to saving throws BAB and to hit bonuses grow faster than your AC does.

 

I hate the fact that armor effects your ability to be hit rather than soaking damage

 

I hate that you gain hit points every level... It plays like a video game and makes it so a long sword is deadly at first level but by the time you get to 5th or 6th level taking a sword hit is no big deal.

 

I hate that Saving throws out strip spell DCs so that by the time you reach 10th level you might as well give up casting spells that have a save because your opponent will almost assuredly pass.

 

Well I guess that pretty much illustrates my point. D&D as a game system is a dinosaur that just has not died yet. I had high hopes for 3rd edition, but was hugely disappointed in it. At this point I have decided I am never going to buy another D&D book (or pathfinder... since it was mentioned) and I play it only because in many cases it is play D&D or nothing at all, but I can say for myself I would be content to never play D&D again.

[Ternaugh]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

I don't have a problem playing D&D, though I'd never run it. D&D, as noted above, is a set of exceptions to rules that the GM needs to run through, and it just feels like a game of Fizzbin to me. If someone else wants to run the game, I'll play, but I'm most likely going to choose an easy character class so that I only need to manage my exceptions (for 3.5, that ended up being Barbarian or Bard).

 

I'm probably not a typical roleplayer, however, as the first game that I played was Top Secret. The first game that I GMed was Traveller (LBB), and Champions wasn't too far after that. I still find myself going back either to Traveller or Hero when I want to run a game. GURPS is great for the sourcebooks, but I usually convert what I need.

 

JoeG

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Actually I think just the opposite. D&D is too complicated. This spell counters that spell but not that other one. You want an ability that is only in a specific prestige class so you have to build your character in advance before to reach your max level... plan every level, feat, and skill at character creation or face being behind the power curve compared to the other players and the monsters you will face.

 

All that being said I have a HUGE LIST of other things I hate about D&D.

 

Why is it that in order to be a master crafts man (Expert 20th level) you have to kill stuff to earn experience in your craft?

 

Why can a fighter of any respectable level do a swan dive off of a 100' high cliff rather than waste the time climbing down... stand up... dust himself off and go kill a couple hundred kobolds and walk away with only minor injuries?

 

Why is it that a 5th level fighter who is specialized in an exotic weapon is actually worse at using it than any 20th level magic user who has probably never even laid a hand on the weapon?

 

Why are shields so worthless? Anyone who has actually trained with a weapon and shield know that the shield is the piece of armor that soaks up almost every single hit you would otherwise have taken. It's should certainly be worth more than a +1 to AC.

 

Speaking of armor by the time you are of a level that you are facing high level fighters and monsters you might as well not wear armor at all because similar to saving throws BAB and to hit bonuses grow faster than your AC does.

 

I hate the fact that armor effects your ability to be hit rather than soaking damage

 

I hate that you gain hit points every level... It plays like a video game and makes it so a long sword is deadly at first level but by the time you get to 5th or 6th level taking a sword hit is no big deal.

 

I hate that Saving throws out strip spell DCs so that by the time you reach 10th level you might as well give up casting spells that have a save because your opponent will almost assuredly pass.

 

Well I guess that pretty much illustrates my point. D&D as a game system is a dinosaur that just has not died yet. I had high hopes for 3rd edition, but was hugely disappointed in it. At this point I have decided I am never going to buy another D&D book (or pathfinder... since it was mentioned) and I play it only because in many cases it is play D&D or nothing at all, but I can say for myself I would be content to never play D&D again.

 

Which is why i tend to stick to the 2.5 version. The Combat and Tactics book did a good job overall for weapon specializations and Armor specialization/Shield Specialization. In 3rd, i agree that the Saves vs spell DC's can get silly. Depending on what your spell affects will determine how likely a creature will be able to save. Lol, if a fighter took a swan dive off a 100' cliff, he dies....period. Similar to the logic in the Palladium system, if a character dives on top of a grenade, he dies regardless of SDC and Hit Points. After years of playing D&D, my problem after all that time is that the big, mean, nasty boss type at the end of the road always fell into either a caster type or supernatural menace i.e. Wizard, Cleric, Demon/Devil or Lich.

[prestidigitator]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

D&D provides a lot of great source material. It's too bad some of the great creative minds providing it don't also go for Hero, or can't divorce the, "Special Effects from the mechanics," enough to provide material that isn't so game system dependent.

 

I play with a group that mostly runs 2nd Edition AD&D that is modified so heavily as to be almost unrecognizable. The funny thing is, a ton of the modifications make it look more like Hero (e.g. armor that absorbs some damage, though it still decreases AC; End-Reserve-like mana for casting spells...). The guy who did most of the customization doesn't really know much about Hero, and I'm itching to get him hooked....

 

I'm at the point myself where I will play D&D if that's what my roleplaying group does, but I will never, ever GM it again.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

No' date=' i wouldn't say that D&D is scoffed at. After all it really is the grandfather of RPG's that also helped spawn various other games for people to enjoy. As much as i like HERO, D&D is still a very enjoyable game for me. In fact, alot of people enjoy other types of RPG's and you will see posts here that reflect that. Im a 2nd Ed D&D guy myself and have enjoyed 3.0 and the new Pathfinder system. Just my opinion, but as enjoyable as HERO is for me, if i want a fantasy game i go to D&D [/quote']

 

Ditto, except I play 4e. I find myself having trouble recently dealing with HERO's complexity, and the fact that nobody else in my group wants to learn the rules, so if I run a game I literally have to do all the work because nobody has clue one how to build even the simplest powers, and they don't want one. I have to build all the characters, then explain them, then build every last power construct as they spend XP. D&D, by comparison, is plug and play; pick your pre-set templates and you're good to go in 10 minutes.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

I played D&D during the 1st Edition days (back when it was called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, to differentiate it from Basic Dungeons and Dragons. I owned both). It was very simplistic and after years of playing with the system, I grew bored with its limitations and moved on. Eventually I found HERO. Nowadays, D&D is no longer simplistic. It is somewhat complicated in fact. I do think the changes they've made between 3rd edition and 4th edition have improved the game significantly (for example, I always had a problem with the fact that a longsword does only 1D8 damage and a fighter could at most get a +6 damage bonus from STR and then MAYBE a magic bonus. It took forever to kill stuff in that game! Now that same fighter gets an additional +1 Damage bonus equal to his level of experience, so a level 20 fighter does 1D8+ STR bonus + 20. And if they have feats on top of that, it can get pretty crazy. Stuff dies now!) however once you experience HERO (and experience it properly) its very, very hard to go back to other game systems for long. These days I only play HERO, Storyteller (World of Darkness, Exalted etc) Shadowrun and maybe a handful of other games. All the others I simply convert to HERO.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Ditto' date=' except I play 4e. I find myself having trouble recently dealing with HERO's complexity, and the fact that nobody else in my group wants to learn the rules, so if I run a game I literally have to do all the work because nobody has clue one how to build even the simplest powers, and they don't want one. I have to build all the characters, then explain them, then build every last power construct as they spend XP. D&D, by comparison, is plug and play; pick your pre-set templates and you're good to go in 10 minutes.[/quote']

 

Lol, 4th ed is the one that i cant get into because it seems more like a hardcover MMO. I can sympathize with your players because HERO can be intimidating at first blush however, i cant think of another game where i have had more fun trying to figure out how to build something. If and when they can get a comfortable feel for HERO, your work load will drop to more manageable levels.

[Gary]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Why is it that in order to be a master crafts man (Expert 20th level) you have to kill stuff to earn experience in your craft?

 

You don't have to kill stuff. Just defeat the challenge. A craftsman's challenge will obviously be different from a fighter's.

 

Why can a fighter of any respectable level do a swan dive off of a 100' high cliff rather than waste the time climbing down... stand up... dust himself off and go kill a couple hundred kobolds and walk away with only minor injuries?

 

You can do the same thing with a respectable pointed Hero character. 100 ft is about 10D6 damage, and any respectable Hero character with decent PD will take little if any Body.

 

Why is it that a 5th level fighter who is specialized in an exotic weapon is actually worse at using it than any 20th level magic user who has probably never even laid a hand on the weapon?

 

Did you ever read Glen Cook's Black Company series? The Lady was able to master an exotic weapon (the Rumel) with absolutely no prior training. 20th level magic users are epic characters who pretty much outclass 5th level characters at everything. It's like in Hero where someone with base 10 OCV is better than someone with a base 5 OCV even in an unfamiliar weapon.

 

Why are shields so worthless? Anyone who has actually trained with a weapon and shield know that the shield is the piece of armor that soaks up almost every single hit you would otherwise have taken. It's should certainly be worth more than a +1 to AC.

 

Game balance. I believe Hero system shields also only provide +1 or +2 DCV for the most part. And D&D shields get much better once you throw some magic on them.

 

Speaking of armor by the time you are of a level that you are facing high level fighters and monsters you might as well not wear armor at all because similar to saving throws BAB and to hit bonuses grow faster than your AC does.

 

Armor helps quite a bit. With a 20th level fighter's progression at +20/+15/+10/+5, the first 1 or 2 attacks might hit, but the armor has a very good chance at stopping the last couple of attacks.

 

I hate the fact that armor effects your ability to be hit rather than soaking damage

 

Just personal preference.

 

I hate that you gain hit points every level... It plays like a video game and makes it so a long sword is deadly at first level but by the time you get to 5th or 6th level taking a sword hit is no big deal.

 

Same in Hero. A 500 pt character is going to laugh at attacks that strike fear into 100 pt characters.

 

I hate that Saving throws out strip spell DCs so that by the time you reach 10th level you might as well give up casting spells that have a save because your opponent will almost assuredly pass.

 

There are feats that allow you to increase save DCs. But the fact is that a lot of the higher level spells are one shot kills, so if you didn't have this progression, then spell casters would be even more lethal than they are currently. I don't think anyone in D&D is arguing that spellcasters are underpowered...

 

Not that D&D 3.5 isn't without flaws, but a lot of the criticism is something that most game systems struggle with.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

You don't have to kill stuff. Just defeat the challenge. A craftsman's challenge will obviously be different from a fighter's.

 

 

 

You can do the same thing with a respectable pointed Hero character. 100 ft is about 10D6 damage, and any respectable Hero character with decent PD will take little if any Body.

 

 

 

Did you ever read Glen Cook's Black Company series? The Lady was able to master an exotic weapon (the Rumel) with absolutely no prior training. 20th level magic users are epic characters who pretty much outclass 5th level characters at everything. It's like in Hero where someone with base 10 OCV is better than someone with a base 5 OCV even in an unfamiliar weapon.

 

 

 

Game balance. I believe Hero system shields also only provide +1 or +2 DCV for the most part. And D&D shields get much better once you throw some magic on them.

 

 

 

Armor helps quite a bit. With a 20th level fighter's progression at +20/+15/+10/+5, the first 1 or 2 attacks might hit, but the armor has a very good chance at stopping the last couple of attacks.

 

 

 

Just personal preference.

 

 

 

Same in Hero. A 500 pt character is going to laugh at attacks that strike fear into 100 pt characters.

 

 

 

There are feats that allow you to increase save DCs. But the fact is that a lot of the higher level spells are one shot kills, so if you didn't have this progression, then spell casters would be even more lethal than they are currently. I don't think anyone in D&D is arguing that spellcasters are underpowered...

 

Not that D&D 3.5 isn't without flaws, but a lot of the criticism is something that most game systems struggle with.

 

Agreed. As i said in an earlier post, no game is flawless. System x,y and z will have their own internal balance factors. While 4th ed may make allowances for a fighter to add his level to damage, if i read that right from above, that ed is balanced to allow it. Same with 2nd and the 3.x, those systems have their own balancing factors that keeps it level for what it is.

[teh bunneh]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

I'm rather a big fan of D&D4. I ran a weekly campaign that lasted a year with it, and my players had fun. The game is very, very good at what it was designed for. The trick is to embrace the MMO aspects of the game, rather than to try to bend and tweak and change and modify the rules to fit the world. This is sometimes tough for Hero players/GMs to grasp. I like D&D4 much better than D&D3.x because of this reason, actually -- the D&D3.x ruleset was nearly as inflexible, but the creators liked to pretend that you could do anything with the system, modify it and tweak it to your heart's delight. But in my experience, that just wasn't true; people who changed one thing had to start piling house rules on top of house rules to adjust everything else...

 

I'm not planning on running it again anytime soon, but if I were to play, I'd happily play in a 4e game, or a 2e game, but I'd have to think twice before I played 3e again.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

I'm rather a big fan of D&D4. I ran a weekly campaign that lasted a year with it, and my players had fun. The game is very, very good at what it was designed for. The trick is to embrace the MMO aspects of the game, rather than to try to bend and tweak and change and modify the rules to fit the world. This is sometimes tough for Hero players/GMs to grasp. I like D&D4 much better than D&D3.x because of this reason, actually -- the D&D3.x ruleset was nearly as inflexible, but the creators liked to pretend that you could do anything with the system, modify it and tweak it to your heart's delight. But in my experience, that just wasn't true; people who changed one thing had to start piling house rules on top of house rules to adjust everything else...

 

I'm not planning on running it again anytime soon, but if I were to play, I'd happily play in a 4e game, or a 2e game, but I'd have to think twice before I played 3e again.

 

If they would take the MMO aspect out of 4th, that would make me happy. I play MMO's like LOTRO and WoW from time to time and prefer to keep that experience seperate from my D&D experience. As i mentioned earlier in the thread, im all about the 2/2.5 version of D&D and they are much less problematic than the 3.x editions.

[Wolf]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Not to jump on you here Gary, but I have some responses to a few of these. Again, I know much of this is personal preference, and for the most part to each their own...

 

You don't have to kill stuff. Just defeat the challenge. A craftsman's challenge will obviously be different from a fighter's.

This one I've seen ignored by most of the games that I've gotten in on in 3rd ed. Most of the kids who have started gaming with 3.x think that it's a stupid rule that you can somehow "get over" on a fight by trying to navigate through the encounter.

 

I even had a fighter at one point, who went through his entire first "introductory adventure" getting around folks, and overcoming the challenges, but never once did I roll to attack, or have to declare my AC. I was told that I got no XP but that it was an entertaining game. I brought up the "just defeat the challenge" argument, and was told that it was a rule that "no one pays attention to" and promotes playing the game wrong. So far, the people who I know who pay attention to that are in the extreme minority.

 

 

You can do the same thing with a respectable pointed Hero character. 100 ft is about 10D6 damage' date=' and any respectable Hero character with decent PD will take little if any Body.[/quote']

For Supers, sure. However in any Heroic scale Game I run, from 40- 500 points, if someone can survive a 100 foot fall with "little to no Body" then I'm doing something wrong as a GM. I usually cap the defenses (personal, Fall is a NND that doesn't matter if you've got full plate on, you're still squishy when it comes to gravity) around 10 (meaning most folk have around a 5-7), and don't much let it go higher than that for a Heroic level thing.

 

 

Did you ever read Glen Cook's Black Company series? The Lady was able to master an exotic weapon (the Rumel) with absolutely no prior training. 20th level magic users are epic characters who pretty much outclass 5th level characters at everything. It's like in Hero where someone with base 10 OCV is better than someone with a base 5 OCV even in an unfamiliar weapon.

Again, if properly built (reason from effect) then a person's "natural" CV should be at most (again for a Heroic Scale game) 6, and that's for a person who seems to be born to weld a weapon. Everything else is either focused CV (OCV bought for weapons/spells) or CSL's representing experience, and not natural talent.... IE Skills, not Stats.

 

 

Game balance. I believe Hero system shields also only provide +1 or +2 DCV for the most part. And D&D shields get much better once you throw some magic on them.

LOL, honestly, I've never seen a writeup for a shield in Hero, odd that, I kinda just realized that... Anyway, my writeup for shields are a multipower that has three slots (at least); one for DCV buff (when you want to use it as a device that deflects), one for PD/ED (when you turn the shield and use it to buffet a straight attack, and block with it), and the last one as a shield bash type attack slot). There are other slots one can gain, of course, such as the bonus to OCV (only vs. Blocks, limited Grabs cannot follow) and other such things as that... but I've never used them as a straight buff to DCV.

 

 

Armor helps quite a bit. With a 20th level fighter's progression at +20/+15/+10/+5' date=' the first 1 or 2 attacks might hit, but the armor has a very good chance at stopping the last couple of attacks.[/quote']

Yah, I agree with this for the most part... I've had decent luck with AC being pretty stacked against to-hit rolls.. I think that D&D did a huge disservice to itself when it let it's attack/defense leave a static table though. I prefer the old Thac-0, and the fact that attacks and defenses had a beginning, middle, and end point. I think it kept things much better balanced than what we've got now.

 

I also like that Hero has the same thing, but it's far more variable... but basically the 3-18 roll within the (OCV+11)-DCV keeps the same sort of boxed static table, if you will, that makes it less (though not infallible) to twinkage.

 

 

Just personal preference.

I also dig armor that absorbs, but historic armor did definately do a better job at deflecting than it did at absorbing... so it's a wash here for me...

 

 

Same in Hero. A 500 pt character is going to laugh at attacks that strike fear into 100 pt characters.

Again, that depends, you can have a 500 point character built under limitations within the Heroic scale, that still can't have DC's exceeding 9... and 100 point characters who's DC's can exceed 23, so I think it's a wild assertion to assume that every game would be like that. Sure in a supers, but much of your standard fantasy gaming isn't based on the superheroic scale.

 

 

There are feats that allow you to increase save DCs. But the fact is that a lot of the higher level spells are one shot kills' date=' so if you didn't have this progression, then spell casters would be even more lethal than they are currently. I don't think anyone in D&D is arguing that spellcasters are underpowered...[/quote']

Actually, I know someone (who might even be reading this right now) who most definitely thinks that 3.5 wizards are severely underpowered, even as they stand.

 

 

Not that D&D 3.5 isn't without flaws' date=' but a lot of the criticism is something that most game systems struggle with.[/quote']

Granted, no system is perfect, and the more expertise that a person has with a system allows him to manipulate the system better, thus some people run better games in some systems than in others can.

 

However, the reason that some folks like one system over another is because what they want to see is modeled better by that different system. I thought of all those things that wrote up there when I read your post, and so for me, the "flaws that most game systems struggle with" as you put it (if your examples above are part of that case for you) just don't seem to exist in Hero for me, because of how I used the system. Obviously, you use the system a tad different than I do, and that's fine, heck that's one of the awesome benefits of Hero; everyone can kinda "do it" a bit differently.

 

For me Hero answered much of these issues, in how you can manipulate the system... in D&D, you Can't unless you start house-ruling.. and that gets messy in 3.x just due to how bloody interconnected the rules are... you'll find something that you never thought of because you changed this rule over here, and now the whole bloody system is out of sorts... grr...

[end tiny rant, that wasn't (at least this last paragraph) aimed at Gary, and to that extreme, I wasn't intending to "aim" at Gary, just respond with my 2 copper using my thoughts.]

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Actually, I know someone (who might even be reading this right now) who most definitely thinks that 3.5 wizards are severely underpowered, even as they stand.

 

 

Lol, thx Wolf

[Wolf]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Actually, I know someone (who might even be reading this right now) who most definitely thinks that 3.5 wizards are severely underpowered, even as they stand.

 

 

Lol, thx Wolf

 

Hey, I didn't call you out... you did that, LOL.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Hey' date=' I didn't call you out... you did that, LOL. [/quote']

 

LOL.....oh wait, DOH!

[Gary]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Not to jump on you here Gary' date=' but I have some responses to a few of these. Again, I know much of this is personal preference, and for the most part to each their own...[/quote']

 

I was comparing Hero in general to D&D 3.5 in general. If you want to throw house rules to make the experience better for yourself, then that's fine. It does become very awkward though, to compare D&D base rules to your house rules.

 

This one I've seen ignored by most of the games that I've gotten in on in 3rd ed. Most of the kids who have started gaming with 3.x think that it's a stupid rule that you can somehow "get over" on a fight by trying to navigate through the encounter.

 

I even had a fighter at one point, who went through his entire first "introductory adventure" getting around folks, and overcoming the challenges, but never once did I roll to attack, or have to declare my AC. I was told that I got no XP but that it was an entertaining game. I brought up the "just defeat the challenge" argument, and was told that it was a rule that "no one pays attention to" and promotes playing the game wrong. So far, the people who I know who pay attention to that are in the extreme minority.

 

I think you're playing with the wrong crowd. Every DM I've seen has been pleased if a player's creativity allowed them to bypass an encounter. Then again, I usually play with roleplayers rather than hack and slashers.

 

For Supers, sure. However in any Heroic scale Game I run, from 40- 500 points, if someone can survive a 100 foot fall with "little to no Body" then I'm doing something wrong as a GM. I usually cap the defenses (personal, Fall is a NND that doesn't matter if you've got full plate on, you're still squishy when it comes to gravity) around 10 (meaning most folk have around a 5-7), and don't much let it go higher than that for a Heroic level thing.

 

First of all, your comparing your house rules to the D&D base rules. A fairer comparision would be if you compared your house rules to what you would house rule a fall in D&D if you used that system. Second of all, your cap in Def is 10 which means the average fall will do 0 Body to someone at the cap. Even someone with 7 Def only takes 3 on average, which means they've probably taken about the same percentage of their hits as a medium level fighter in D&D falling 100 feet.

 

Again, if properly built (reason from effect) then a person's "natural" CV should be at most (again for a Heroic Scale game) 6, and that's for a person who seems to be born to weld a weapon. Everything else is either focused CV (OCV bought for weapons/spells) or CSL's representing experience, and not natural talent.... IE Skills, not Stats.

 

I don't believe that a base CV of 6 represents a 20th level character very well. Part of the problem is the terms we're using. Your definition of "Heroic Scale" probably refers to lower than 10th level characters in D&D. There's no way that a 20th level wizard is any way less than a Super in power level.

 

LOL, honestly, I've never seen a writeup for a shield in Hero, odd that, I kinda just realized that... Anyway, my writeup for shields are a multipower that has three slots (at least); one for DCV buff (when you want to use it as a device that deflects), one for PD/ED (when you turn the shield and use it to buffet a straight attack, and block with it), and the last one as a shield bash type attack slot). There are other slots one can gain, of course, such as the bonus to OCV (only vs. Blocks, limited Grabs cannot follow) and other such things as that... but I've never used them as a straight buff to DCV.

 

Shields throughout the life of Hero System have been build as +DCV.

 

Yah, I agree with this for the most part... I've had decent luck with AC being pretty stacked against to-hit rolls.. I think that D&D did a huge disservice to itself when it let it's attack/defense leave a static table though. I prefer the old Thac-0, and the fact that attacks and defenses had a beginning, middle, and end point. I think it kept things much better balanced than what we've got now.

 

I also like that Hero has the same thing, but it's far more variable... but basically the 3-18 roll within the (OCV+11)-DCV keeps the same sort of boxed static table, if you will, that makes it less (though not infallible) to twinkage.

 

D&D 1 and 2 never scaled well. With most armor classes maxed at about -10 or so, a high level fighter would hit everytime unless he rolled a 1. With the current system, you can scale a monster as high as you want in order to challenge a party.

 

 

I also dig armor that absorbs, but historic armor did definately do a better job at deflecting than it did at absorbing... so it's a wash here for me...

 

Especially helmets which were usually angled to deflect a blow.

 

Again, that depends, you can have a 500 point character built under limitations within the Heroic scale, that still can't have DC's exceeding 9... and 100 point characters who's DC's can exceed 23, so I think it's a wild assertion to assume that every game would be like that. Sure in a supers, but much of your standard fantasy gaming isn't based on the superheroic scale.

 

I think you're quibbling. A 500 pt character is going to be far more powerful than a 100 pt character unless you're deliberately trying to make it not so, or unless you're trying to munchkin the 100 pt character. And if you're going that route, than a higher level D&D character who chooses suboptimal feats and character classes and has low ability scores can definitely be weaker than a lower level character who optimizes his feats, prestige classes, and has high ability scores.

 

And I also must reiterate that I believe a 20th level wizard is far closer to a Supers character than a Heroic character.

 

Actually, I know someone (who might even be reading this right now) who most definitely thinks that 3.5 wizards are severely underpowered, even as they stand.

 

Perhaps at low levels. If he thinks that's the case at 10+ level, I have to seriously wonder if he has ever played the game at higher levels.

 

Granted, no system is perfect, and the more expertise that a person has with a system allows him to manipulate the system better, thus some people run better games in some systems than in others can.

 

However, the reason that some folks like one system over another is because what they want to see is modeled better by that different system. I thought of all those things that wrote up there when I read your post, and so for me, the "flaws that most game systems struggle with" as you put it (if your examples above are part of that case for you) just don't seem to exist in Hero for me, because of how I used the system. Obviously, you use the system a tad different than I do, and that's fine, heck that's one of the awesome benefits of Hero; everyone can kinda "do it" a bit differently.

 

For me Hero answered much of these issues, in how you can manipulate the system... in D&D, you Can't unless you start house-ruling.. and that gets messy in 3.x just due to how bloody interconnected the rules are... you'll find something that you never thought of because you changed this rule over here, and now the whole bloody system is out of sorts... grr...

[end tiny rant, that wasn't (at least this last paragraph) aimed at Gary, and to that extreme, I wasn't intending to "aim" at Gary, just respond with my 2 copper using my thoughts.]

 

Yep. Everything in the end boils down to personal preference.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Perhaps at low levels. If he thinks that's the case at 10+ level, I have to seriously wonder if he has ever played the game at higher levels.

 

 

 

Lol, just for clarification, i am fully aware how powerful a high level wizard can be. Wolf and I may have had a little miscommunication regarding Mages If anything, i am an avid believer that a player should conduct spell research for unique spell concepts to really differentiate him/herself from the next mage. Even at low levels, its never about how powerful your spells are, but how the player best utilizes what they have. Knowing your spells goes a long way to make playing a wizard a more enjoyable experience.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Shields throughout the life of Hero System have been build as +DCV.

 

It occurred to me somewhere along the line that D&D AC is DCV, and that in a Fantasy Hero game if you were to build all armor as DCV you'd have very D&D-like combat.

[Nolgroth]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Wow. I think teh Bunneh said it best; you have to walk into either game with a different set of expectations. I don't walk in to a D&D game expecting HERO or vice versa. There are elements that I would like to translate between systems (Skill Challenges from D&D to HERO being first on my mind) but the two games are very different. I have become somewhat attached to the easily spelled out rules in D&D 4 (specifically the Essentials line). D&D is great for a pick up game, whereas HERO requires a minimum amount of preparation for even the most simple game. Knowing that the D&D rules are "quick play," I understand that they are not going to be as flexible as HERO. I do wish there was some serious rules for actually designing monsters (as opposed to the "Buy More Books" message). That lacking is probably what is going to keep D&D from every replacing HERO. Well that and the lack of multi-genre, do-it-yourself, rules building.

[AirborneRob]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Wow. I think teh Bunneh said it best; you have to walk into either game with a different set of expectations. I don't walk in to a D&D game expecting HERO or vice versa. There are elements that I would like to translate between systems (Skill Challenges from D&D to HERO being first on my mind) but the two games are very different. I have become somewhat attached to the easily spelled out rules in D&D 4 (specifically the Essentials line). D&D is great for a pick up game' date=' whereas HERO requires a minimum amount of preparation for even the most simple game. Knowing that the D&D rules are "quick play," I understand that they are not going to be as flexible as HERO. I do wish there was some serious rules for actually designing monsters (as opposed to the "Buy More Books" message). That lacking is probably what is going to keep D&D from every replacing HERO. Well that and the lack of multi-genre, do-it-yourself, rules building.[/quote']

 

To a certain extent, i agree. Having said that, i started with 2nd ed and progressed through 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, tried 4th, now into Pathfinder. The feats in 3.0 was initially pleasant since 2.5 really started the "feats" thing. As you stated, you dont walk into a D&D game expecting HERO. For me, i dont walk into a D&D game expecting WoW. Really, it all boils down to what you enjoy, lol, if i could, i would keep my D&D games strictly 2.5

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

When I'm playing checkers, I'm not wishing I were playing chess. I'm enjoying checkers.

 

I've gotten away from one-true-wayism for RPGs. HERO will always be my go-to game, and there are games I probably won't check out because they fall on the wrong side of the cost/benefit curve (be the cost effort, money, or something else), and there are games I won't play because I don't enjoy them, but there aren't any games I won't play because they're not [game X] or because they're "inferior".

[Nolgroth]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

Does 2.5 mean Skills and Powers?

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

 

My $.02:

 

I see D&D as less fun than HERO by default. I don’t want to say that D&D is not fun at all, simply that more fun can be had by using HERO rules. Both systems can be house ruled to patch them, so I’ll only mention some what I see as the fundamental reasons I prefer HERO to D&D (I am talking about 3.5 rather than 4th, 4th has different issues).

 

1) HERO is more active: HERO you can abort when it is not your action, and you are not penalized for holding/delaying (D&D resets initiative count and requires a full phase to hold std. action). The fact that you can actively defend yourself keeps people interested when it is not their turn.

 

2) HERO is simpler: HERO has an unified rules system, where once you grok it, it is all fairly simple. There are exceptions, but it is far less than D&D, where if you know how grappling works, trip checks are fairly different. D&D is an exception based rules system where there are dozens of minor exceptions and sub-rules requiring you to memorize all the exceptions (or where to find them).

 

3) It is harder to recognize that a spell/feat is broken before play in D&D. Both HERO and D&D can have under or overpowered options, but in HERO it tends to be more obvious before play. This allows GMs to catch potential problems before they arise.

 

4) Inequality of options: In D&D many options are presented as equal. Unfortunately some options are better than others. An example is fireball vs. stinking cloud. Both are level 3 wizard/sorc spells, but stinking cloud is significantly better. It is easy for new players to be tricked into bad choices.

 

5) Crowd Control is less effective in HERO: In D&D spells/abilities that remove people from combat are much more effective than doing damage. They are so effective that whichever side wins initiative can suppress enough of the other team to insure a victory. Also due to the nature of D&D, you tend to have binary results (alive/dead), and I prefer the (alive/unconscious/dead) system from HERO.

 

I’d be happy to write a longer post explaining any of these issues if requested, or list more, but I wanted to keep it “short”