Changing the Hero system

[humantorch101]

Hey has anyone changed or mucked about with the hero system/champions game?

I'm interested to find out about what changes you made and why. Big or small and also what edition was you running at the time.

 

Tell me about your tinkering exploits!

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

Lots of stuff...but here's a few digestible articles:

 

Resources

[Orion]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

4th ed. The only big change is that movement and reaction speed are separate. Movement is bought as kph, or inches/turn, and then movement/phase is calculated. I have no idea how this compares to the movement by segment in 6e I've heard mention of. I've never liked the idea that going from speed 2 to speed 3 increases movement by 50%. Just never made sense to couple them in one characteristic score.

 

I've also tweaked the strength and growth charts in minor ways. I have defined 20 as being the max human ability - anything over this requires some type of paranormal ability. May end up going to 25 or even 30 as the max in the future as they seem to be more standard now, but that would require reworking all the comparison charts. I allow absorption to act as a defense, rather than requiring separate defense to be bought - same effect, different mechanism.

 

I also do not require that points be balanced. Design the character. Now figure out how to emulate it with the rules. If the points balance, all and good. If not, all is still good, because it just doesn't matter. This shouldn't affect the game at all, but it's amazing to me how many GMs and players can't accept this.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

I created a MAgic System for a Fantasy Game that used only Skills for spells - no power constructs were bought and they were only loosely defined for purposes of effect. I'll have to find the document again and finish it out and maybe post it.

[dsatow]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

here's some that work fairly well.

 

Static Stun Modifier (x3) stun. Removes the lottery. In 6th Ed, the amount probably should be changed to a 2.

 

Using Stretching to Sweep. Drop Strength 5 and uses 2m of Stretching and gain +1 OCV. Kind of like spreading an energy blast.

 

Walking for cover. If you have at least a 1/2 phase delayed, instead of diving for cover, you simply take your delay and move.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

Static Stun Modifier (x3) stun. Removes the lottery. In 6th Ed, the amount probably should be changed to a 2.

[...]

Walking for cover. If you have at least a 1/2 phase delayed, instead of diving for cover, you simply take your delay and move.

The Hit Location Killing Stun Multiplier in 6E varies from 1 for Hands/Feets to 5 for the Head. I guess the 1/2d6 roll is basically a shortened version of hit-location roll for the STUN.

 

I don't know if the Delayed Dive for Cover is that special. You change a DEX roll with -1 per 2m to an opposing dex roll. Nothing you couldn't do with delay and Block or Dodge either.

 

I've never liked the idea that going from speed 2 to speed 3 increases movement by 50%.

[...]

I also do not require that points be balanced. Design the character. Now figure out how to emulate it with the rules. If the points balance, all and good. If not, all is still good, because it just doesn't matter. This shouldn't affect the game at all, but it's amazing to me how many GMs and players can't accept this.

For the SPD: Just lower running, flying and whatever to so that they match your Movement/Turn after the increase and use the points to pay for (part's) of the SPD increase.

 

About non-balacing: Depends on the players. For some group it works, for others not.

[dmjalund]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

It has been noted elsewhere that the new STUNx for Killing attacks means more STUN (on average) is done if you roll Hit Locations than if you don't

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

It has been noted elsewhere that the new STUNx for Killing attacks means more STUN (on average) is done if you roll Hit Locations than if you don't

 

That seems consistent, to me, with the potential for normal damage attacks to also multiply their damage.

 

I also found the Stun Multiple a much more significant issue in high defense games, such as Supers, than in lower defense games, such as Fantasy. I note the former tend to use Stun Multiple rolls while the latter tend towards hit locations.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

It has been noted elsewhere that the new STUNx for Killing attacks means more STUN (on average) is done if you roll Hit Locations than if you don't

 

It also makes Penalty Skill Levels v Hit Locations and the Increased Stun Multiple advantage more valuable.

 

A mere +2 Stun Multiple (+1/2 advantage) is enough to double the average stun now....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

It also makes Penalty Skill Levels v Hit Locations and the Increased Stun Multiple advantage more valuable.

 

A mere +2 Stun Multiple (+1/2 advantage) is enough to double the average stun now....

 

Increased Stun Multiple depends on perspective. To me, the 6e change modified the KA to "an attack whose primary purpose is to inflict lethal damage on its target". If you want to knock someone out, KA is no longer the attack of choice. In previous editions, its volatility made it an excellent choice against targets with relatively high defenses.

 

If I can have either a 4d6 KA, a 2 1/2d6 KA with +2 Stun Multiple or a 12d6 normal attack, how do they compare?

 

14 BOD x 2 = 28 average STUN

9 BOD x 4 = 36 average STUN

or 42 average STUN and 12 average BOD

 

The normal attack remains superior at generating STUN

 

Make it 2d6 with a +4 Multiple and we finally average 42 STUN, like the normal attack, but average BOD is much less and Knockback is far less likely.

 

1d6+1 with a +8 multiple averages 45 STUN, 3 better than the Blast

 

1d6 can have a +12 multiple for average STUN of 49, and 84 STUN one time in 6

 

So if we get down to ridiculous extra multiples, we can still beat the normal attack's average STUN and get some significant volatility. But this should be much more obviously a construct for the GM to assess carefully.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

A mere +2 Stun Multiple (+1/2 advantage) is enough to double the average stun now....

A normal Killing Attack with increased STUN Multiplier, when maximum BODY and a 3 on the 1/2d6 is rolled...still only does the same STUN as a normal Blast/Punch of the same DC would and the STUN is affected by the same defenses.

Your advantage would give an 4 times fixed modifier, but also affect the DC calculation stronger. So 12 DC are only 40 Base Points of Killing Damage(2 1/2d6).

That gives you 15 BODY and 60 STUN at max, or 9.5 BODY and 38 STUN at average. Vanilla 12 DC Blast has 72 STUN Max and 42 Average.

[JamesG]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

A normal Killing Attack with increased STUN Multiplier' date=' when maximum BODY and a 3 on the 1/2d6 is rolled...still only does the same STUN as a normal Blast/Punch of the same DC would and the STUN is affected by the same defenses.[/quote']

 

Yes, the Max STUN done by a KA w/ +2 Stun Mult is indeed the same as the Max Stun done by a Normal attack with the same Active Points. But due to the smaller number of dice involved the KA is more likely to actually roll Max STUN. Basically you are still more likely to get a result on the extreme end (high or low) with the KA than the Normal Attack. But the new 6E stun roll means those extremes are not as extreme as they used to be. I have not really studied the numbers since my group does not want to convert to 6E but it seems to me that KAs may have been a bit over-nerfed in 6E. Though it's probably better than the Stun Lotto from 5E and earlier, so I'm not really complaining. It just turns KAs into more of a niche attack in typical supers games, which is actually in genre.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

Yes' date=' the Max STUN done by a KA w/ +2 Stun Mult is indeed the same as the Max Stun done by a Normal attack with the same Active Points. But due to the smaller number of dice involved the KA is more likely to actually roll Max STUN.[/quote']

But it also changes how DC are calculated, for the worse. A +1/2 Advantage means 10 Base Points Count as 3 DC, instead of 2. Even with Vanilla Rules Killing Attacks do Less STUN on average than Normal attacks (with the same maximum/worser minimum).

 

Also, as often Killing Attacks do Maximum STUN, they do Minimum STUN. As often as they do high STUN, they do low STUN. A larger number of dices makes results around the average more likely, so it makes the entire thing more reliable to produce some minimum amount of STUN (enough to exceed defenses and perhaps even Defenses+CON). Killing Attacks excel at doing BODY, that is there purpose.

And Yes, that means Killing Attacks are thus less used in Superheroic games (since it is often enough to knock somebody out).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

Yes' date=' the Max STUN done by a KA w/ +2 Stun Mult is indeed the same as the Max Stun done by a Normal attack with the same Active Points. But due to the smaller number of dice involved the KA is more likely to actually roll Max STUN. Basically you are still more likely to get a result on the extreme end (high or low) with the KA than the Normal Attack. But the new 6E stun roll means those extremes are not as extreme as they used to be. I have not really studied the numbers since my group does not want to convert to 6E but it seems to me that KAs may have been a bit over-nerfed in 6E. Though it's probably better than the Stun Lotto from 5E and earlier, so I'm not really complaining. It just turns KAs into more of a niche attack in typical supers games, which is actually in genre.[/quote']

 

This is a matter of perspective. In a typical Supers game, Killing Attacks are nerfed. In the typical Supers game, it is difficult to inflict BOD damage. If BOD damage is not to be the norm, killing attacks are genre inappropriate. 6e has made the killing attack an attack designed to KILL, not to inflict massive STUN damage. If, in the specific game, death is to be a rare to nonexistent combat results, killing attacks are not appropriate. Nerfing them demotivates their purchase.

 

But it also changes how DC are calculated, for the worse. A +1/2 Advantage means 10 Base Points Count as 3 DC, instead of 2. Even with Vanilla Rules Killing Attacks do Less STUN on average than Normal attacks (with the same maximum/worser minimum).

 

Also, as often Killing Attacks do Maximum STUN, they do Minimum STUN. As often as they do high STUN, they do low STUN. A larger number of dices makes results around the average more likely, so it makes the entire thing more reliable to produce some minimum amount of STUN (enough to exceed defenses and perhaps even Defenses+CON). Killing Attacks excel at doing BODY, that is there purpose.

 

If my opponent has 30 defenses, any attack that rolls under 31 will do no STUN. An attack which inflicts 30 STUN and one that rolls 4 BOD x 1 = 4 are equally effective.

 

If my choice is an attack that will vary from 39 to 45, with equal probabilities of each, I will average a roll of 42, and 12 STUN past defenses. If, instead, it has equal odds of 14, 14, 28, 42, 56 and 70, I will average [(0 + 0 + 0 + 12 + 26 + 40)/6 = ] 13 STUN past defenses, just a little bit better. But I bet that 40 Stuns the target, and 15 STUN past defenses won't.

 

Bump that up to 35 defenses, and I either get an average of 7, or 10.5. That volatility seems way more significant now.

 

Drop defenses to, say, 20 and I'll average 22 or 19 1/3. So I'll switch my Multipower to Blast against low defense targets.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

6e has made the killing attack an attack designed to KILL, not to inflict massive STUN damage.

Wich is exacly what I said and what their name sugests.

 

If my opponent has 30 defenses' date=' any attack that rolls under 31 will do no STUN. An attack which inflicts 30 STUN and one that rolls 4 BOD x 1 = 4 are equally effective.[/quote']

Wich is why am a Fan of sticking to the campaign limits. In Standart Super game the Damage Dealers (EP's, Martial Artists) may throw 14 DC around and most others 6-12 DC and defenses are capped at 25 effective STUN Defenses. That are the values the balacing is based upon.

Once you up the defenses, don't complain that one aspect of the balacing is off;)

 

Note that this leaves room for brick to have High CON, High STUN and High REC. And just be tactically and don't let those 14 DC EP's hit you round by round (that's what allies and enivronment are for).

[Lucius]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

Hey has anyone changed or mucked about with the hero system/champions game?

I'm interested to find out about what changes you made and why. Big or small and also what edition was you running at the time.

 

Tell me about your tinkering exploits!

 

Steve Long has, but he refuses to answer game design or philosophy questions so good luck getting him to talk about it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

mucking about with a palindromedary

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

In the Bunneh's current Fantasy game magic is bought as a Multipower with Ultra Slots. Everyspell requires Costs END (if it doesn't cost inherently) and Requires A Magic Roll. The big change is that you can activate any number of spells (slots) as you want at a time - no regards for Pool size or any of that. The downside is every additional spell must be maintained with Endurance (and this is a Heroic campaign so END isn't all that high), and each additional attempt to cast adds the Skill Roll Modifier from already active spells - if you cast a spell with a -3 modifier and maintain it and then the next Phase cast another spell with a -2 Modifier you get a total -5 to try and cast it (current modifier plus one from already maintained spell).

 

Gives a very nice feel to magic, doesn't let it get out of control, and the system slides handily out of the way (no math on what does and doesn't fit into your MP Pool).

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

In the Bunneh's current Fantasy game magic is bought as a Multipower with Ultra Slots. Everyspell requires Costs END (if it doesn't cost inherently) and Requires A Magic Roll. [...] and each additional attempt to cast adds the Skill Roll Modifier from already active spells - if you cast a spell with a -3 modifier and maintain it and then the next Phase cast another spell with a -2 Modifier you get a total -5 to try and cast it (current modifier plus one from already maintained spell).

 

Gives a very nice feel to magic, doesn't let it get out of control, and the system slides handily out of the way (no math on what does and doesn't fit into your MP Pool).

The entire point behind a multipower is, that you save points but can't use them simultaniously. That's why you get the equivalent of a -4 or -9 Limitation for Real Cost Purposes (at least that's the values for the X/5 and X/10 Real Cost Calculation for 6E Multipowers).

 

What he did (in effect), was cutting down the real cost to somewhere around 1/10 and enforce that any spell has to take "cost Endurance to maintain" (-0, -1/4 or -1/2 Limitation dependign on Spell), "Requires a Power Roll(Magic Power Skill, -1/2)" plus the custum limitation for adding penalty (perhaps another -1/4 or just a Skill Modifier for the Magic Skill). Pretty much what is sugested in one or two "Tolkitting Magic" Areas of the 6E Core Books.

Can be done without the construct of a Multipower (except that having many high AP spell may cost even less with the modified MP idea).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

The entire point behind a multipower is, that you save points but can't use them simultaniously. That's why you get the equivalent of a -4 or -9 Limitation for Real Cost Purposes (at least that's the values for the X/5 and X/10 Real Cost Calculation for 6E Multipowers).

 

What he did (in effect), was cutting down the real cost to somewhere around 1/10 and enforce that any spell has to take "cost Endurance to maintain" (-0, -1/4 or -1/2 Limitation dependign on Spell), "Requires a Power Roll(Magic Power Skill, -1/2)" plus the custum limitation for adding penalty (perhaps another -1/4 or just a Skill Modifier for the Magic Skill). Pretty much what is sugested in one or two "Tolkitting Magic" Areas of the 6E Core Books.

Can be done without the construct of a Multipower (except that having many high AP spell may cost even less with the modified MP idea).

 

So what. It works. Your math impresses me a lot less than you think it does.

 

Edit: because I'm actually tiring of you telling me how the system works, open your Sixth Edition Rulebook to the title page, under Thank Yous he lists a bunch of people as the "Sixth Edition Technical Advisory Committee" who helped Steve hash out a lot of changes and ideas for 6th Edition - I'm one of those people. So is the GM who created this magic system. We know how the Rules work.

 

The thread is about how people have changed the system, that's one way we've changed it In Play to attain a specific feel.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

The thread is about how people have changed the system' date=' that's one way we've changed it In Play to attain a specific feel.[/quote']

And I just noticed that you can do it with even less work, by just ruling that every Spell only costs 1/5 of the normal Real Cost, but you have to buy a certain amount at creation. So I don't see what you are so angry about.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

I'm not angry, I'm annoyed at being quoted the rulebook constantly - especially in a thread specifically about changing the rules. The rules are not my babysitter.

 

The MP pool represents a certain level of skill, you can only buy or upgrade spells if your pool is large enough, sometime AP has nothing to do with this (somw low AP powers are high level spells).

Second it minimizes clutrer because it requires no additional notation or specialized Limitations, nor does it involve cost multipliers.

The setup also gives the game a nice flavor. There's also a caster type that uses VPPs instead and doesn't buy specific spells that use the same rules.

Lastly it has the added advantage of working in Hero Designer without any modifications. Though the spell system was designed long before even 5th Ed came out. (pretty sure, at least, only been with rhe group a few years & the campaign world gas existed for a long time).

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

I'm not angry' date=' I'm annoyed at being quoted the rulebook constantly - especially in a thread specifically about changing the rules. The rules are not my babysitter.[/quote']

Just because my rule changes where already mentioned in the books as possible ways to toolkit the system, makes them not less right than your's. I wasn't valueing your modifications, so please don't say mine are bad or less valueable just because I use sugestion you or some other tester may have made.

If you want to continue this discussion, we should do this per PM.

[JamesG]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

I’m responding/reacting to multiple posts here.

 

As usual Hugh Neilson has stated my thoughts more eloquently than I could, both when it comes to why “nerfing” KAs in a typical Supers game is a good thing, and in elaborating on why the increased volatility of KAs can be useful against Defenses on the high side. (In his post #14 in this thread).

 

 

 

 

But it also changes how DC are calculated' date=' for the worse. A +1/2 Advantage means 10 Base Points Count as 3 DC, instead of 2.[/quote']

 

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Unless you are talking about how it takes more STR or Velocity to convert into a DC when dealing with an Advantaged attack. This is true, but often is not a big factor in a typical Supers game. And it is in a Supers game when players have the most freedom to choose between Normal damage and Killing damage. In Heroic games, that choice is usually constrained by the weapons available.

 

If you meant something else on this point could you elaborate?

 

 

 

Wich is why am a Fan of sticking to the campaign limits. In Standart Super game the Damage Dealers (EP's, Martial Artists) may throw 14 DC around and most others 6-12 DC and defenses are capped at 25 effective STUN Defenses. That are the values the balacing is based upon.

 

Eh, I’m not a big fan on hard caps like this. It tends to lead to cookie cutter characters with everyone buying up to the cap. Our group has had more success using the ER System described in an early issue of Digital Hero, which keeps characters more or less combat-balanced while allowing for a wide variety of Speeds, CVs, and Defenses.

 

 

 

To get back on topic of this thread, here is a change our group made in our 5E Champions game in order to rein in the stun lotto of KAs. If a KA does not do any Body damage to a target, halve the Stun damage it does after Defenses are applied. This has worked out pretty well in reducing the “one shot KO” chances of KAs vs. high defense targets such as bricks, and also means that bricks can all but ignore small arms fire.

 

Though I’m thinking of proposing we adopt the 6E rule of a 1d3 stun multiplier instead, even though we are not planning a general switch to 6E. Seems that rule is simpler than the one we use and should have similar impact on the game. But I need to crunch some numbers first to see for sure.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Unless you are talking about how it takes more STR or Velocity to convert into a DC when dealing with an Advantaged attack. This is true, but often is not a big factor in a typical Supers game. And it is in a Supers game when players have the most freedom to choose between Normal damage and Killing damage. In Heroic games, that choice is usually constrained by the weapons available.

 

If you meant something else on this point could you elaborate?

This was also about DC caps. I just wanted to show that fixed 2 times STUN Multiplier makes Killing attacks worse at doing STUN, no matter how much Increased Multiplier is applied to it. It needs the 3 on 1/2 d6 to even get close to Normal Attacks STUN.

 

 

Though I’m thinking of proposing we adopt the 6E rule of a 1d3 stun multiplier instead' date=' even though we are not planning a general switch to 6E. Seems that rule is simpler than the one we use and should have similar impact on the game. But I need to crunch some numbers first to see for sure.[/quote']

As I heard, they also changed it so normal Defense applies vs Killing STUN. Without that, it would be equal to or even better at dealing STUN than Normal Attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the Hero system

 

This was also about DC caps. I just wanted to show that fixed 2 times STUN Multiplier makes Killing attacks worse at doing STUN' date=' no matter how much Increased Multiplier is applied to it. It needs the 3 on 1/2 d6 to even get close to Normal Attacks STUN.[/quote']

 

Um...no

 

1d6+1 with a +8 multiple averages 45 STUN, 3 better than the Blast

 

1d6 can have a +12 multiple for average STUN of 49, and 84 STUN one time in 6

 

But you do need a pretty ridiculous adder to the Multiple to beat a 12d6 Blast with a 60 AP KA.

 

The 6e KA with no advantages needs a 3x multiple to match the 12 DC blast on average STUN.

 

As I heard' date=' they also changed it so normal Defense applies vs Killing STUN. Without that, it would be equal to or even better at dealing STUN than Normal Attacks.[/quote']

 

This depends on the defense levels in your game. In my experience, this change had no real impact. In 5e and prior editions, a single point of rDEF meant all your defenses were applied to reduce STUN from a KA. I rarely, if ever, saw any credible combatant with no resistant defenses, so everyone got all their defenses against KA's anyway.