How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

[archermoo]

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

 

How do I view D&D? It was the second RPG I ever played. I played 3 different versions of it (Dungeons and Dragons, Basic D&D, Advanced D&D). We had a lot of fun with them at the time. Then Champions came out, and Iron Crown started releasing their "Law" products. I started playing using what because Rolemaster for fantasy settings before they actually ever published it under that name, and Champions was mostly what I did when I wasn't playing RM.

 

So how do I view D&D? I don't know anything about any version after AD&D, and I stopped playing that in the early 80s. I remember some of the games that I played using it fondly, but not the system so much. So I guess I'm not really the best source of info, but I couldn't help but throw my $.02 in.

[Nolgroth]

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

 

I think all seafood tastes like butt' date=' but if, in a thread asking about opinions on seafood, I'd posted "All seafood tastes like butt," I'd be rightfully crucified.[/quote']I'd stand by ya!

[Nolgroth]

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

 

DnD's big thing back then was the settings. The Settings were always very rich, and I had a lot of fun shilling for T$R back in those days, especially with the Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and of course my personal favorites of Ravenloft, Birth Right, and Al-Qadim.....

 

Lot of stuff got converted to HERO Always thought it was nice all those other companies would make all those cool boxed sets and maps for me, that way all I had to do was convert a few stats.

 

~Rex

This reminds me, I really want to do a full on Humans only Fantasy Horror HERO a'la Ravenloft setting. I've been wanting to do that for a very long time. Hmmm. I suppose I should get to work on setting that up. Not like I have time to run it at the moment, but always nice to have something sitting around for those rainy days (cuz who gets in the horror mood when it's all bright and sunny). Thanks for reminding me there Rex.

 

I wonder how the Van Richten guides translate over.....oh don't mind me, just sinking into evil GM mode.

[AirborneRob]

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

 

I'd stand by ya!

 

He'll stand by ya while chewing on a lobster tail

[Nolgroth]

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

 

He'll stand by ya while chewing on a lobster tail

Not a chance. Shellfish or whatever you want to call those crustacean things make me blow up like a balloon. And they taste like butt.

[AirborneRob]

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

 

Not a chance. Shellfish or whatever you want to call those crustacean things make me blow up like a balloon. And they taste like butt.

 

Lol, i stand corrected

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Skills and Powers, and Combat and Tactics, actually gave me a pretty bad taste, and made it really difficult for me to look at 3rd edition D&D with any kind of interest. While the (vaguely Hero-like) concepts were neat, I found that the execution was terrible, and really started the corner-case ability-chaining munchkinism that D&D was evolving into. And the introduction of game-changing "Attacks of Opportunity"...shudder (yes, I understand some form of attack of opportunity might have been present before Combat and Tactics/3E, but that's the point at which it started to become THE major tactical consideration of all combat, and you had to start thinking 6 times about each planned bit of movement or attack lest you enter or leave or cross or look at someone's threatening squares or whatever, and try to remember which enemies had already used their AoOs and which have extra ones and what maneuvers might give someone an AoO against you and...). Once I finally did look at 3rd edition with the slightest bit of interest, I found that the "feat chains" and crap left an even worse taste (the way skills evolved was a great--albeit partial--step in the right direction though).

[Gary]

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

 

The only house-rule I mentioned was the ignoring the "overcoming and obstacle" with D&D rules. Hero is based on modeling what you want... There are no rules for drowning, suffocation, etc. there is a suggestion for falling, but again, that's based in the core concepts, so we can model whatever we want and both call it core and house-rules, but since it's done within preview of the rules, then it's not a "true" house-rule, because nothing is being changed and the system is being followed.

In other words, do to the "hard lined" nature of D&D and the "table for everything" mentality, then it's very easy to have "house-rules," Whereas in Hero it's a much more slippery monster, because the core concept is that you model what you feel is appropriate, so again, the entire game is really made up of a structured "house-rule" format.

 

You specifically mentioned your house rule of saying that falls were NND damage that ignored armor. Since that is not a core rule, I think saying that it's a house rule is accurate.

 

Again, not house rules, In hero I'm simply mimicking what a fall does... as the system asks you to do... quite plainly actually (you can put on whatever armor, modern through ancient, and I guarantee you still won't want to take a 100' dive into pavement).

I said my Cap was 10, not that that's what most folks would have. In my games 10d6 would avg end up in about 5 body, and against a 10-15 body person, that's pretty nasty. Not to mention all the stun they'd end up taking... in which, they would be pretty shaken up (possibly even con-stunned), and they would NOT be at peak fighting condition, as they would in D&D... and even that 3 body, in Hero (not counting healing in either system) would take much longer than a comparable amount in D&D to heal, making it that much more threatening.

 

Definitely a house rule. The base hero rules say that armor protects against falls. When comparing falls, the OP specifically stated a medium-high level fighter. If your world's medium to high level fighters have only 5 PD, they have other major problems than falls.

 

3 Body would take about 1-2 week to heal in Hero. 35 damage for a D&D fall would take about 5 days for a 7th level fighter or 35 days in 1-2 Ed D&D. Doesn't seem to be more threatening to me. In addition, a few seconds would recover ALL the stun damage done by a fall whereas a 7th level fighter down 35 HP is probably down about 1/2 his total. He's WAY more threatened than the Hero System fighter with 7 PD.

 

I actually believe that the whole gamut of D&D runs in the Heroic Scale, up to 30+ levels. then you transfer to a Superheroic scale, and are finally challenging gods and what-not.

 

Superheroic vs Heroic represent a way in which characters interact with the system (knockback vs knockdown for example, ways in which push is used, there are more) there are suggestions on what points to use for each, but you can have a heroic scale game using 500 or even 10,000 points if you wanted to, and you can have superheroic games using 100 or even 50 points (though it's less entertaining going in that direction, it's none the less, possible).

 

With a 6 CV, a buff of +3 OCV for melee fighting, and 6 CSL's in Bastard sword you can model a fighter who can have a 12 OCV with his bastard sword, and a +1d6KA on his swings with it... all broken down propperly to the focuses in his training.

If he picks up a machine gun that was mysteriously transported, it all goes back to his base CV then subtracted by using a weapon he's unfamiliar with (itsn't it something like -2 or -3, haven't read those rules in a bit). So it models the entire situation pretty darn well.

It even mimics the "power attack" option as he takes a hit, down to 9 OCV with the sword to get a +2d6KA damage, or even buffs his OCV to a bloody 15 if he puts nothing additional into damage from the CSL's... again, I think that mimics a high level fighter pretty darn well... you can even naked advantage an autofire on there to represent a rapid attack that you get from D&D high level fighters.

 

Under that power build, there is no reason to assume that a mage has a high CV with "any weapon he/she picks up" (4CV, plus 5 OCV with combat spells, plus 4CSL's with "fire-magic" I think makes a pretty convincing mage, though I'd agree not such a good "combat mage" specifically. But if he picks up that sword, there is no way it's very functional for him, even if he does have a prof.) But that's how I generate characters for my game, not house-rule, just my way of doing Hero, all by the rules.

 

Sorry, that doesn't sound like a 20th level fighter or mage to me. Your sample fighter character is a one trick pony who would get massacred if he were disarmed or was forced to use a Flail or Mace for example. You're also assuming a buff of +3 OCV in every battle. And using 6 bastard sword levels for damage only adds +1D6 HKA damage. He sounds like a medium level fighter who sunk all his feats into bastard sword specialization.

 

Similar for the mage. And of course I've given an example in literature of a mage who was able to use an exotic weapon almost immediately due simply to her enormous number of mage levels.

 

1&2 scaled wonderfully, I don't know how you came up with 1...

AC did top out at -10, and a fighter at 20 (without an insane strength, remember you didn't start getting buffs to things until after a stat of 16, and I think for str that only gave you damage, but no to-hit buff... so looking at it your average fighter (and remember, magic items really didn't go above +4 unless you were a paladin or had a specific hammer).

To hit= thac-o (20) minus AC (-10)= 10 minus 4 (for your plus weapon) 6+ to hit.

Now if your a strait fighter you "may" have specialized, and that can modify, along with higher str... And I'll admit that's pretty good, but still, your a fighter... No one else has it that easy in this edition.

 

A 20th level fighter most likely is double specialized with his chosen weapon and probably has a +5 weapon and a good chance of girdles or gauntlets to raise his Str. Even without, he probably has +2 from Str.

 

So +5 for weapon, +3 for double specialization, +2-6 for Str, and you can easily get to a 2 needed for a hit. Plus there were various buffs to get his to hit number even better. And every single one of his attacks gets this to hit. It got kinda ridiculous when haste spells and two weapon use were in play. My favorite was someone double specializing in flails with 18 dex and using 2 rods of flailing and hasted. 5/2 attacks base, double for 2 weapon use, double for haste, and double for rod of flailing meant 20 attacks per round. +3 damage for double specialization, +6-12 for Str, +3 for Rod of Flailing meant that demon lords got killed in 1 round. This is a ridiculous example, but the average 20th level fighter with 2 weapons at 20th level could kill a pit fiend or balor in 1 round.

 

In 2nd Ed, you could put 5 proficiencies into Grand Master specialization and your THACO, damage, and number of attacks increased even more (I believe you topped out at +5/+5 and 3 attacks base per round).

 

A 500 or 10,000 point character still has to abide by your campaign limits... I set my stats at 20, double cost for up to 30 (admittedly this is a house rule, and is dealt with in a side bar in 6th edition). My Active point limit is at about 60, and my CVs stop at 8, my Dice cap is at 15, etc... the points put into the character don't matter in terms of what limits your GM puts on things.

 

And that's what I'm referring to. In terms of "the max," in certain things you can reach it quickly, but the breadth of the two characters... options, skills, etc. is much different. The 100 point character is far more focused than the 500 point character.

 

The Harbinger of Justice is a perfect example, he's got an immense amount of points, but blow for blow there are quite a few characters in Champions who can wipe the floor with him, and most are under his point total by a good measure. That's all I'm saying with that statement.

 

I find it hard to imagine a campaign with limits that both a 100 and 500 pt character would both be topped off at. If your 100 pt characters have a 8 CV, 60 active attacks, and 20 characteristics, I would suspect a very munchkined character that would not be allowed in 99% of campaigns out there. However, I can easily see a 500 pt character reaching each limit.

 

I stand by my statement that a 500 pt character can generally laugh at attacks that would terrify a 100 pt character.

 

The Harbinger of Justice example is not accurate. You can't compare him to a Champions character because the ground rules are different. You have to compare apples to apples. I would suspect that he would annihilate the average character built in his universe at 100 or 500 pts.

 

Again, very much in agreement. I hope you take this as me speaking in conversational levels, I'm in no way meaning to be argumentative with these posts, I understand at it's core it's one of those, my opinion vs yours and I don't (in anyway) want you to think that I undervalue that specific thing, I think you probably have your own experiences and preferences that have led to you gaming and viewing your games as richly rewarding for you, much as mine have for me, otherwise, how would we still be able to do this as older than highschooler aged folks... lol. And in the end, we learn something of the community in the end... maybe even get a glimpse of a different perspective.

 

Understood. That's the beauty of the boards, being able to exchange ideas in a friendly environment.

[Gary]

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

 

I'm going to contest this one point.

 

HERO is, to me, always consistently balanced within the given genre and only if the GM puts some thought into AP limits and such.

 

Take Fantasy Hero. NCM on all characters, with some races maybe having a higher maximum due to package deals, etc. So you have your Conan clone barbarian; 8 PD, 20 BODY, 20 STR, 3d6k Greatsword, etc. He has reached the limit of a human so far as taking and dealing damage, remaining XP will go to skill levels, martial maneuvers, etc. Even with heavy armor (6 or 8 PD max for such a genre), a longsword - using hit locations especially - can still be very deadly to our hero. Even at 500 points he won't have been able to go much over the NCM if any - though he might be exceedingly difficult to actually hit, if he is hit, and takes BODY, he is as wounded at 500 points as he would have been at any other point level depending on at what point he bought his BODY up to 20.

 

Now in a Superheroic game, yes, a 100 point character (unless very, very specialized) is not going to fair well against a 500 point character, nor should they.

 

Regardless of how many limitations you put on your campaign, I find it very hard to believe that your typical 100 pt barbarian would be in the least bit threatening to a 500 pt barbarian. I'm assuming both are PC barbarians who don't just simply throw their points away on useless stuff. And I'm pretty sure that a barbarian who has adventured enough to reach 500 pts will have some magic weapons/armor/utility items that would give him a big edge over the 100 pt barbarian.

[AirborneRob]

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

 

Skills and Powers' date=' and Combat and Tactics, actually gave me a pretty bad taste, and made it really difficult for me to look at 3rd edition D&D with any kind of interest. While the (vaguely Hero-like) concepts were neat, I found that the execution was terrible, and really started the corner-case ability-chaining munchkinism that D&D was evolving into. And the introduction of game-changing "Attacks of Opportunity"...shudder (yes, I understand some form of attack of opportunity might have been present before Combat and Tactics/3E, but that's the point at which it started to become THE major tactical consideration of all combat, and you had to start thinking 6 times about each planned bit of movement or attack lest you enter or leave or cross or look at someone's threatening squares or whatever, and try to remember which enemies had already used their AoOs and which have extra ones and what maneuvers might give someone an AoO against you and...). Once I finally did look at 3rd edition with the slightest bit of interest, I found that the "feat chains" and crap left an even worse taste (the way skills evolved was a great--albeit partial--step in the right direction though).[/quote']

 

Cant say i disagree. Some of the extra book keeping i could do without and like most any book, D&D or otherwise, we took what we liked and left the rest alone. I thought the Knockdown rules were decent but i have to admit the critical charts were fairly convoluted at first blush. It's been too many years since using those rules but overall we enjoyed some of the changes. Lol, i am unwaivering in my satisfaction with the expanded weapon specialization, style specializations and Armor/Shield Specialization rules

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Lol' date=' i am unwaivering in my satisfaction with the expanded weapon specialization, style specializations and Armor/Shield Specialization rules [/quote']

Yeah, those parts were pretty neat, though some of the requirements and interactions with other abilities were a little messed up. And in the ways those things shined, I noticed a distinct similarity to things like Hero's CSLs and Martial Arts and such.

[AirborneRob]

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

 

Yeah' date=' those parts were pretty neat, though some of the requirements and interactions with other abilities were a little messed up. And in the ways those things shined, I noticed a distinct similarity to things like Hero's CSLs and Martial Arts and such. [/quote']

 

Oh, the fact that a warrior could get to the point of increasing his base weapon damage was fantastic. The extra hit/damage was nice as was the extra attack, but take all that plus increased weapon damage, lol, oh yea. The requirements for the weapon, armor and shield stuff wasn't bad, really the only thing you were required to do was have the prof. slots to pay for the abilities if i remember right. The fact your overall movement was based on the STR to hit modifier and DEX reaction adjustment i believe, that was a good call. It allowed such characters to have a little more battlefield command and control.

[Wolf]

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

 

You specifically mentioned your house rule of saying that falls were NND damage that ignored armor. Since that is not a core rule, I think saying that it's a house rule is accurate.

 

Definitely a house rule. The base hero rules say that armor protects against falls. When comparing falls, the OP specifically stated a medium-high level fighter. If your world's medium to high level fighters have only 5 PD, they have other major problems than falls.

Quick note: that was a stated 5 PD natural, and not counting Armor... so I don't think that it's that terrible of a situation.

 

Next: Is it a house rule if it's in the core book?

 

The HERO System falling damage rules are designed with dramatic realism in mind, to give characters some chance of surviving most falls. If the GM wants to be more “realistic” about falling damage, he may want to change the rules to make falling damage more dangerous. Some possibilities include:

-Make all falling damage Penetrating

 

-Only allow characters to apply their innate PD (and any similar Powers, such as Resistant Protection representing durable flesh) to falling damage; worn armor and the like do not apply (or apply at a reduced rate)

 

-Convert the damage for long falls into the equivalent DCs of Killing Damage

As I said, Hero is much more about modeling the game that you want... that's actually why we are having this conversation. Both styles are Hero, by Hero's rules, because you are asked to model your world the way you see it... D&D doesn't have that design theory... it's static.

 

IE (an example):

D&D rules for falling= X and only X. If you want to change it, you are deviating from the rules, thus making a house rule.

Hero rules for falling= X, or if you'd rather= Y, or how about=Z, but whatever you do, make sure you are doing it the way that you see fit...

 

The golden rule of RPG's (if you don't like it, change it) is hard-coded into Hero (very few things are a solid concrete effect. There is no lightning, there is no drowning, there is no falling, there is no anything that you don't approve of before the game is set, that's also why there are two different ways a character even interacts with many rules (heroic and superheroic) because it's all in flux until you add a GM)... because you really only have the framework for a system, and then tons of parts that you can manipulate to make the system whole.

 

3 Body would take about 1-2 week to heal in Hero. 35 damage for a D&D fall would take about 5 days for a 7th level fighter or 35 days in 1-2 Ed D&D. Doesn't seem to be more threatening to me. In addition' date=' a few seconds would recover ALL the stun damage done by a fall whereas a 7th level fighter down 35 HP is probably down about 1/2 his total. He's WAY more threatened than the Hero System fighter with 7 PD.[/quote']

 

I'll agree with you there, if you have a few moments to recover from a fall, they are about equal, what I was referring to was if there was a few baddies on the other side of said fall.

The Hero Character is probably Con stunned, and will need to take a segment to recover from that, counting the segment that he used to make the fall (if there was one used by him) that's now 2, then he may want to use a recovery to get back some stun, depending on how serious the threat from said baddies might be. That's some heavy time taken out, and even some serious loss of resources with his stun being down a chunk... whereas the D&D fighter is down some HP, and has no other actions necessary, except to maybe pull himself up off the ground (something our Hero character would have to do also).

 

Sorry, that doesn't sound like a 20th level fighter or mage to me. Your sample fighter character is a one trick pony who would get massacred if he were disarmed or was forced to use a Flail or Mace for example. You're also assuming a buff of +3 OCV in every battle. And using 6 bastard sword levels for damage only adds +1D6 HKA damage. He sounds like a medium level fighter who sunk all his feats into bastard sword specialization.

 

Similar for the mage. And of course I've given an example in literature of a mage who was able to use an exotic weapon almost immediately due simply to her enormous number of mage levels.

yah, for whatever reason I forgot the 2 CSL's required to buff a DC, over the single... I don't know if I've even looked at the description since Hero 4th (not suggesting it was that way in fourth, I just am saying it's been a bit since I looked at it).

 

Secondly a fighter by the rules can only spec. once. (second ed Zeb rule book, granted 3.x has blown this out of the water, but... well... yah, I argue that the power level is at best "out of control" in that edition anyway, though it is sometimes fun to be that wildly powerful, still that's rangeing into the Supers level encounters closing on 5th level, especially if your using Pathfinder rule set for 3.x.)

I don't know the mage you are referring to, and I know you mentioned "her" in your previous post... I'll take your example, but I know absolutely nothing about what she is capable of, so that example is lost on me in it's entirety.

 

A 20th level fighter most likely is double specialized with his chosen weapon and probably has a +5 weapon and a good chance of girdles or gauntlets to raise his Str. Even without, he probably has +2 from Str.

 

So +5 for weapon, +3 for double specialization, +2-6 for Str, and you can easily get to a 2 needed for a hit. Plus there were various buffs to get his to hit number even better. And every single one of his attacks gets this to hit. It got kinda ridiculous when haste spells and two weapon use were in play. My favorite was someone double specializing in flails with 18 dex and using 2 rods of flailing and hasted. 5/2 attacks base, double for 2 weapon use, double for haste, and double for rod of flailing meant 20 attacks per round. +3 damage for double specialization, +6-12 for Str, +3 for Rod of Flailing meant that demon lords got killed in 1 round. This is a ridiculous example, but the average 20th level fighter with 2 weapons at 20th level could kill a pit fiend or balor in 1 round.

 

In 2nd Ed, you could put 5 proficiencies into Grand Master specialization and your THACO, damage, and number of attacks increased even more (I believe you topped out at +5/+5 and 3 attacks base per round).

 

Yah, I think your either using the brown books or the 2.5 optional stuff from combat and tactics, which are fun, but not core. In the core rule book it's pretty clearly stated (however the brown books later re-state it in such a way as to counter the core book, and the 2.5 stuff went in a different direction totally) in the main rule book that a Fighter is the only one who can specialize and he can only do that with one weapon, so I've modeled a D&D fighter fairly well. Only a paladin or someone wielding that hammer of hammers has a +5 weapon, otherwise they cap at +4, so you have one shot at a pc being able to randomly roll that hammer if he's a fighter, and he's not specializing if he's a Pally. So I think your numbers are a using some optional rules, and some house rules. Girdles and Gauntlets are also a fairly rare random "drop," so there is some hope in that happening, about as much as actually rolling a number (using the suggested first rolling method) high enough to score any bonuses on your str. I think it's quite a long shot and some pretty broad assumptions that put the fighter where you're looking at him, but again, different groups did different things, and if anyone walked on to our table with someone with that kinda swag (even at 20th) he'd be laughed into making a new one... D&D 2nd ed was much about making due with limited resources, even at high levels. Every battle a stretch, Every victory hard won... sweating from 1-20... Great stuff. Stuff that the new game just gives you so much padding to keep from having a rough fight.

 

I find it hard to imagine a campaign with limits that both a 100 and 500 pt character would both be topped off at. If your 100 pt characters have a 8 CV, 60 active attacks, and 20 characteristics, I would suspect a very munchkined character that would not be allowed in 99% of campaigns out there. However, I can easily see a 500 pt character reaching each limit.

 

I stand by my statement that a 500 pt character can generally laugh at attacks that would terrify a 100 pt character.

 

I ran a game in 4th ed Hero based on the Disney's Gargoyles cartoon off an on for a while, it was a pretty good game, all in all... well received. In it we had a beat cop, and I think he came in under 100 points, some supernaturals moving from about 200-400 points, and even an fallen angel, who stood neutral to the war in the heavens and he came in just over 1,000 points... they could all participate in combat equally. Granted though, if the cop and the angel went head to head, with all limiters removed (I granted the angel such great power at the disadvantage that Human will had to be free, and he could not interfere with that in any way with all that ambiguity that comes with that disad) it would be ugly... but again, with the limiters on for the campaign, for the most part, the angel couldn't touch him... but I know that's a bit outside the limits of the conversation we are having.

I will agree with the term "generally", however, I do say if you have two characters who have equal CV's, equal DC's, and equal Defenses, equal Active Point caps, equal Dice caps, and equal stat caps then you probably have a closer fight; whatever the point totals are... generally. The question becomes, how easily are those caps met between the two characters... If they are so high that the 100 point character is struggling to match them, then yes, absolutely you are right, however if they are low enough that the 100 point character can reach them with a tightly controlled point budget, then I'd say it would probably be a closer game.

 

 

The Harbinger of Justice example is not accurate. You can't compare him to a Champions character because the ground rules are different. You have to compare apples to apples. I would suspect that he would annihilate the average character built in his universe at 100 or 500 points[/Quote]

That's really what I'm saying. You can't compare a 500 point "heroic" D&D character, to even a 300 point superheroic one. I'm saying that I don't buy that D&D is/ should be in the superheroic categories... Maybe 4th ed... heck, probably 4th ed. Maybe 3.X ed.... heck, around 5-10th level, depending on how you played it. Second ed... no way. Maybe some of the insane stuff from skills and powers, and the other 2.5 stuff... sure... Maybe... but 2nd core, na.

 

Understood. That's the beauty of the boards' date=' being able to exchange ideas in a friendly environment.[/quote']

lol, yah... You have been rep'ed.

[Gary]

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

 

Quick note: that was a stated 5 PD natural, and not counting Armor... so I don't think that it's that terrible of a situation.

 

Next: Is it a house rule if it's in the core book?

 

 

As I said, Hero is much more about modeling the game that you want... that's actually why we are having this conversation. Both styles are Hero, by Hero's rules, because you are asked to model your world the way you see it... D&D doesn't have that design theory... it's static.

 

IE (an example):

D&D rules for falling= X and only X. If you want to change it, you are deviating from the rules, thus making a house rule.

Hero rules for falling= X, or if you'd rather= Y, or how about=Z, but whatever you do, make sure you are doing it the way that you see fit...

 

The golden rule of RPG's (if you don't like it, change it) is hard-coded into Hero (very few things are a solid concrete effect. There is no lightning, there is no drowning, there is no falling, there is no anything that you don't approve of before the game is set, that's also why there are two different ways a character even interacts with many rules (heroic and superheroic) because it's all in flux until you add a GM)... because you really only have the framework for a system, and then tons of parts that you can manipulate to make the system whole.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Golden Rule of RPGs is hard coded into every RPG. D&D also stated that the GM can change any rule they find unbalancing, not fun, or too complicated.

 

 

I'll agree with you there, if you have a few moments to recover from a fall, they are about equal, what I was referring to was if there was a few baddies on the other side of said fall.

The Hero Character is probably Con stunned, and will need to take a segment to recover from that, counting the segment that he used to make the fall (if there was one used by him) that's now 2, then he may want to use a recovery to get back some stun, depending on how serious the threat from said baddies might be. That's some heavy time taken out, and even some serious loss of resources with his stun being down a chunk... whereas the D&D fighter is down some HP, and has no other actions necessary, except to maybe pull himself up off the ground (something our Hero character would have to do also).

 

Perhaps, or perhaps not. A breakfall roll at -5 is very makeable for many Hero characters, especially fighters and rogues. That means only 5d6 damage from the fall. Plus if there are a swarm of serious baddies on the ground, it would probably be stupid to jump under either system. If they're cannon fodder baddies, you're probably ok either way if you jump.

 

A typical 7th level fighter has 50-70 hp, so losing 35 in one shot is a very big deal. I think it's at least as big a deal as a Hero character losing 3 body and some stun that's recoverable in a few seconds. Of course if healing is brought into the mix, then neither character is threatened at all.

 

yah, for whatever reason I forgot the 2 CSL's required to buff a DC, over the single... I don't know if I've even looked at the description since Hero 4th (not suggesting it was that way in fourth, I just am saying it's been a bit since I looked at it).

 

Secondly a fighter by the rules can only spec. once. (second ed Zeb rule book, granted 3.x has blown this out of the water, but... well... yah, I argue that the power level is at best "out of control" in that edition anyway, though it is sometimes fun to be that wildly powerful, still that's rangeing into the Supers level encounters closing on 5th level, especially if your using Pathfinder rule set for 3.x.)

I don't know the mage you are referring to, and I know you mentioned "her" in your previous post... I'll take your example, but I know absolutely nothing about what she is capable of, so that example is lost on me in it's entirety.

 

I have my 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana book right in front of me. Page 18 specifically allows double specialization for +3 to hit, +3 damage, and +1/2 attack per round. And it's allowed for fighters and rangers.

 

Yah, I think your either using the brown books or the 2.5 optional stuff from combat and tactics, which are fun, but not core. In the core rule book it's pretty clearly stated (however the brown books later re-state it in such a way as to counter the core book, and the 2.5 stuff went in a different direction totally) in the main rule book that a Fighter is the only one who can specialize and he can only do that with one weapon, so I've modeled a D&D fighter fairly well. Only a paladin or someone wielding that hammer of hammers has a +5 weapon, otherwise they cap at +4, so you have one shot at a pc being able to randomly roll that hammer if he's a fighter, and he's not specializing if he's a Pally. So I think your numbers are a using some optional rules, and some house rules. Girdles and Gauntlets are also a fairly rare random "drop," so there is some hope in that happening, about as much as actually rolling a number (using the suggested first rolling method) high enough to score any bonuses on your str. I think it's quite a long shot and some pretty broad assumptions that put the fighter where you're looking at him, but again, different groups did different things, and if anyone walked on to our table with someone with that kinda swag (even at 20th) he'd be laughed into making a new one... D&D 2nd ed was much about making due with limited resources, even at high levels. Every battle a stretch, Every victory hard won... sweating from 1-20... Great stuff. Stuff that the new game just gives you so much padding to keep from having a rough fight.

 

Cavaliers and Paladins had Weapon of Choice that was similar to specialization. It allowed extra bonuses to hit and extra attacks per round. In fact, a Cavalier or Paladin could top off at 3 attacks per round which was even better than the fighter with specialization. See page 14 of Unearthed Arcana.

 

+5 weapons were clearly listed in the DMG. There was the generic +5 weapon, the holy avenger, and the +5 Defender. Not to mention the Wand of Force. Also, the random encounter section allowed for a +4 Defender to be given to random NPC fighters of 10-13 level. If a fighter like that could have a +4 weapon, it's not a stretch to say that a 20th level fighter or paladin could have a +5 weapon. Also, gauntlets of ogre power were on the same power chart as the +4 Defender.

 

I ran a game in 4th ed Hero based on the Disney's Gargoyles cartoon off an on for a while, it was a pretty good game, all in all... well received. In it we had a beat cop, and I think he came in under 100 points, some supernaturals moving from about 200-400 points, and even an fallen angel, who stood neutral to the war in the heavens and he came in just over 1,000 points... they could all participate in combat equally. Granted though, if the cop and the angel went head to head, with all limiters removed (I granted the angel such great power at the disadvantage that Human will had to be free, and he could not interfere with that in any way with all that ambiguity that comes with that disad) it would be ugly... but again, with the limiters on for the campaign, for the most part, the angel couldn't touch him... but I know that's a bit outside the limits of the conversation we are having.

I will agree with the term "generally", however, I do say if you have two characters who have equal CV's, equal DC's, and equal Defenses, equal Active Point caps, equal Dice caps, and equal stat caps then you probably have a closer fight; whatever the point totals are... generally. The question becomes, how easily are those caps met between the two characters... If they are so high that the 100 point character is struggling to match them, then yes, absolutely you are right, however if they are low enough that the 100 point character can reach them with a tightly controlled point budget, then I'd say it would probably be a closer game.

 

The vast vast vast majority of campaigns I have seen had caps higher than 100 pt heroic level characters could reach.

 

Even if both characters could reach the cap, the 500 pt character probably has talents, skill levels, magic items, +10 on important characteristics since he can afford to pay double, etc. A 100 pt character with 20 str, 7 PD, etc is still going to be totally outclassed by the 500 pt character with 25-30 str, 10 PD, Combat Luck, Deadly Blow, +6 additional CSLs, etc.

 

That's really what I'm saying. You can't compare a 500 point "heroic" D&D character, to even a 300 point superheroic one. I'm saying that I don't buy that D&D is/ should be in the superheroic categories... Maybe 4th ed... heck, probably 4th ed. Maybe 3.X ed.... heck, around 5-10th level, depending on how you played it. Second ed... no way. Maybe some of the insane stuff from skills and powers, and the other 2.5 stuff... sure... Maybe... but 2nd core, na.

 

If you look at some of the spells for higher level casters, D&D should definitely be in the superheroic category even 1st Ed ones. You've got attacks that could reach 200+ active points that could be flung off in 1 phase.

 

lol, yah... You have been rep'ed.

 

Same here.

[AirborneRob]

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

 

Gary, Wolf...You guys rock. Watching the both of you go back and forth is almost better than a movie, i just need popcorn I am really trying not to jump in on the D&D aspect of the conversation, lol, it's getting harder to behave

[Vondy]

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

 

I have fond, albeit ancient, perhaps nostalgia obfuscated, memories of D&D, esp. Al-Qadim. System-wise, AD&D 2nd edition with 1st Ed bards ported back in was the apex of the system, but I wouldn't play it today. I'm skill centric and the class/proficiency mix doesn't pass muster. When I create a character these days I heavily leverage skills, perks, and custom "heroic talents." True, 3E did introduce a skill system and feats, but it was also disparate, hard to keep track of, and stacking-centric, which doesn't do it for me. I don't want to map out progression for gamist efficiency. I want to build what I want and start playing. As a result, my attitude is "smoke 'em if you've got 'em." If it works for you and your play style, great. But I'm not going back.

[AirborneRob]

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

 

I have fond' date=' albeit ancient, perhaps nostalgia obfuscated, memories of D&D, esp. Al-Qadim. System-wise, AD&D 2nd edition with 1st Ed bards ported back in was the apex of the system, but I wouldn't play it today. I'm skill centric and the class/proficiency mix doesn't pass muster. When I create a character these days I heavily leverage skills, perks, and custom "heroic talents." True, 3E did introduce a skill system and feats, but it was also disparate, hard to keep track of, and stacking-centric, which doesn't do it for me. I don't want to map out progression for gamist efficiency. I want to build what I want and start playing. As a result, my attitude is "smoke 'em if you've got 'em." If it works for you and your play style, great. But I'm not going back.[/quote']

 

In short, you have good memories. I never tried Al-Qadim and never really had any feedback regarding it though im sure it was good. When i was introduced to the HERO system, i have to admit i was damned impressed. The whole idea of numerous building blocks to maneuver to create the character you want reminded me of an RPG jigsaw puzzel at first. As time went on and things became clearer, the system became much more enjoyable and indepth. HERO will not at any point i can see, be the only game i'll play but it will be the one i prefer to play when afforded the choice. Vondy, lol, thats why if i do play D&D, i would rather it be 2.5....less book keeping. We are in a Pathfinder game and i'll admit that so far i'm pleasantly surprised.

[RexMundi]

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

 

Lota props for Pathfinder but really all they did for that version (call it, 3.75) was smooth out the speed bumps. Something that had been done in more then a few other alternative OGL products, like Monte Cooks Diamond Throne Material for one.....

 

For the most part though, I WILL, play other games. That also being said, other then My Super Hero alternatives, I recently sold off or tossed in the trash, most of my Alternative games. I keep coming Back to HERO, and FGU product, or Traveller. Just no Use for D20 in any form anymore (heh, could post a top ten list as to why), though it's fun to kick back with guys like Frank Metzner at Garycon and play some Old Fashioned DnD admittedly. That's more, Game and Company at the table though.

 

Always hated being funneled and limited by a system, but what I couldn't stand even more, was when the system just stacked on More and More Stuff to appease the Power Gamer LCD crowd, and left the rest in the dust.....Stuff like that bored me, it wasn't even remotely creative, just, options to take Away Creativity. *shrug* Toss into that mix, 25 something years of being on the inside arc of multiple companies and multiple systems, when something is "Mechanically Inefficiant and Broken at the fundamental Foundation", I get annoyed with it, in a very short time. Being capable of seperating, "Feeling" from "Function" makes it even harder for me to put up with games that fall short of what I want a game to be able to do.

 

Already disapointed more then a few of my players and such, that I won't Run Storyteller or d20 products for them anymore. Then I sit them down at the table and run the Same Game.....with a Better System.

 

~Rex

[Karmakaze]

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

 

Already disapointed more then a few of my players and such' date=' that I won't Run Storyteller or d20 products for them anymore. Then I sit them down at the table and run the Same Game.....with a Better System.[/quote']

 

I still haven't worked out how to run a LARP with HERO System. Not that I would put myself through that again.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I have fond' date=' albeit ancient, perhaps nostalgia obfuscated, memories of D&D, esp. Al-Qadim. System-wise, AD&D 2nd edition with 1st Ed bards ported back in was the apex of the system, but I wouldn't play it today. I'm skill centric and the class/proficiency mix doesn't pass muster. When I create a character these days I heavily leverage skills, perks, and custom "heroic talents." True, 3E did introduce a skill system and feats, but it was also disparate, hard to keep track of, and stacking-centric, which doesn't do it for me. I don't want to map out progression for gamist efficiency. I want to build what I want and start playing. As a result, my attitude is "smoke 'em if you've got 'em." If it works for you and your play style, great. But I'm not going back.[/quote']

 

Nicely put. I feel the same.

[Ninja-Bear]

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

 

Whats all the fuss? I can run a good Hack-n-Slash in Hero as well a DnD. Rules don't make a good game, people do.

[djkester]

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

 

As an active DM and player ins D&D 4e I would sum up the situation for me this way,

 

The two systems serve completely different game design principles and objectives.

 

My Observations:

D&D seem to be about presenting the player's and DM with something familiar to previous versions of D&D that they may played that they can learn relatively quickly and easily

 

Hero system seems to be about giving the DM and players a system by which they can design and develop anything they can imagine while also providing them with high value samples, alternatives, and rules demonstrations to help them achieve this.

 

I have chosen to invest in the Hero System based on these different objectives.

 

Hero System has always (since i started playing it in 1986) allowed me the most flexibility in creating the most diverse game. I am working on creating a custom game world and found that D&D and other systems have implied far to many restrictions on the mechanics to allow for the diversity and complexity I want in this game world. Further since those systems don't have a power creation frame work it is nearly impossible to design game content (races, classes, and even encounters) without extensive play testing. Something that a frame work approach like Hero System doesn't need.

 

I would summerize my experience of the two systems as, "Give a man fish he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he'll eat for a lifetime." --unknown

 

I really do like both systems but I think they really serve very different goals. My observation of people on these forums is that they value the goals that Hero System game designers over those of the D&D game designers.

 

~Dave

[RexMundi]

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

 

I still haven't worked out how to run a LARP with HERO System. Not that I would put myself through that again.

 

I have and done so, much to my table top shame, with HERO even (I will admit it is funny getting peope to LARP superheroes.....)...In Sort now, if it's Not HERO, or one of my multitudes of Super Hero RPG's, or Traveller (Including B5 and Judge Dredd), I don't Run it anymore (In fact with the excception of getting rid of my Guardians of Order Game of Thrones book, dumping all my d20 stuff and Storyteller stuff at the local uber awesome game store ( http://www.nobleknight.com/ ) made me feel, GOOD. That's saying a lot because my claim to fame in the demo circut is that I can run, Any System, without prep, any time, any where to the point where said skill generated massive booth sales requiring more product to be sent in....

 

It got sumed up rather well with Dave's comment above.....Give a man a Fish, Teach a man to fish etc etc ...... Pretty much answers the question.

 

~Rex

[Fearghus]

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

 

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

 

Whoa guys! the OP ask what my opinion of D&D was, so told him. My opinions are just that MY OPINIONS. I listed things that I don't like about D&D. In general I find the game too complicated and restrictive to be fun to play. I didn't mean to start an argument about the merits and flaws of D&D. If you like it good for you... keep playing. I'll stick with HERO.

[RexMundi]

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

 

I wouldn't sweat the replies.....in Computer land for some reason it becomes paramount to be overly "both Sides of the fence plenty of room for all" that sort of thing. Becuase if you actually have a solid opinion in Computer Land, the rest of the inhabitants will turn on you and try and burn you at the stake.

 

Personal preference is always a big thing, but that doesn't change inherent mechanical superiority and ability either.

 

One of our die hard DnD players had a good one last night during the new arc of my 6e Campaign. all they could say was...."Hmmph....Just realized I've spent years cobbeling together add on books and pages of home rules, to duplicate something HERO does with one skill or power set up. Where can I pick these books up at?"

 

~Rex