I wonder how many have stopped using Champions/HERO for similar reasons to this?

[Pegasus40218]

And if you are running into troubles with that in your switch to HERO and did not encounter it with your experience with DnD then maybe there is a greater issue at hand. I know that, for example, when people are first learning a new system it takes time for things to become natural to them. It takes time for the rules to flow out of them easily. Thus people in these situations will have views of how things work that are not well grounded in the actual mechanics and this leads to conflicts. But these are not the conflicts of "HERO is complicated" but rather "Learning a new system can be tedious". Perhaps it is best to intro the system in minor chunks where the players are not aware of the whole.

 

Oh, but my group seems to have these issues regardless of system...DnD, Pathfinder, HERO -- it's all about min-maxing (particularly combat capabilities) and then arguing rules constantly.  We play every week for 4 to 5 hours, and spend 30 to 60 minutes arguing some rule or another.

 

As an example of the sort of thing that happened in our first attempt to play HERO, the players discovered that they get a positional advantage for being behind an opponent.  In one combat, they found themselves facing a group of opponents roughly equal in number though slightly weaker individually.  The combat basically devolved into a game of "leap frog" as every character on his turn moved to get behind his opponent.  When the opponent would turn to fight, on their next turn, they'd use their movement to circle behind the opponent again.  Now, maybe there's something I missed in the rules regarding zones of control or adjustments of facing, but I couldn't find anything.  I wouldn't have a problem if players using teamwork (successfully) were able to gain positional advantages; but, just because you have a certain amount of movement (6 to 12 meters minimum) shouldn't automatically result in you being able to circle behind your opponent every single time you get a phase to attack him from behind.  Unfortunately, with a group like mine, I almost have to have something spelled out explicitly in the rules to prevent it.  Simply saying that it's completely unrealistic that in a one-on-one fight you're opponent is going to let you run around behind him every time you attack isn't sufficient.

 

Admittedly, this is more of a "player problem" than a "system problem", but it does pose certain challenges when trying to introduce a system like HERO to a group like this.  As the guy trying to run the game, I can guarantee that any ambiguity in the rules will invite an opportunity for exploitation. 

 

For example, in a recent Pathfinder game, there was a rules argument regarding attacking while grappling (or grappled).  One of the characters -- a grappling specialist successfully grappled a small dragon (about the size of a large horse).  In the description of the "grappled" condition, it states "A grappled creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple.  In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform..."  In the section on combat maneuvers, the rules state "Instead of attempting break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that only requires one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."

 

Well, the initial ruling was that, in spite of being grappled, the dragon was able to use ALL of its attacks (2 claws, a bite, two wing buffets, a rear-claw rake, and a tail slap) -- all directed at the grappler.  Under that ruling, the dragon proceeded to inflict enough damage to almost kill the grappler in a single round.  A 45-minute rules argument ensued with the players arguing that in the second rules quote above the rules state that you can make "AN attack" -- implying only one, while the GM argued that in the description of the grappled condition, the text explicitly refers to "attacks" (plural) implying that the dragon can use all of its attacks since they're natural weapons (and thus should be considered "light").  Of course, from a simply visual perspective, this would require that the grappler is extremely stupid with no survival instincts and grappled the dragon from a position that would allow it to bring all four claws to bear (directly underneath it).  A more "realistic" visualization would involve grappling from the side or back of the creature (unless the dragon were the one grappling).  Applying that visualization, a reasonable person could agree that perhaps the dragon should be able to reasonably attack (with the aforementioned -2) with a bite (assuming a traditional long-necked dragon), maybe one of the fore claws, one wing (if the grappler is on the side) and the tail.  But that option was not even considered because the rules-lawyering required that the dragon either be able to use ALL or ONE.

 

Yes...my group will argue rules over the plurality of a word in the rules...So, you can imagine the challenges someone like me -- who is relatively inexperienced with the HERO System -- is going to face when attempting to run HERO for such a group.

[Greywind]

Start buying combat sense for all your villains so that no attack is ever considered "from behind".

[Tigereye]

 

 

As an example of the sort of thing that happened in our first attempt to play HERO, the players discovered that they get a positional advantage for being behind an opponent.  In one combat, they found themselves facing a group of opponents roughly equal in number though slightly weaker individually.  The combat basically devolved into a game of "leap frog" as every character on his turn moved to get behind his opponent.  When the opponent would turn to fight, on their next turn, they'd use their movement to circle behind the opponent again.  Now, maybe there's something I missed in the rules regarding zones of control or adjustments of facing, but I couldn't find anything.  I wouldn't have a problem if players using teamwork (successfully) were able to gain positional advantages; but, just because you have a certain amount of movement (6 to 12 meters minimum) shouldn't automatically result in you being able to circle behind your opponent every single time you get a phase to attack him from behind.  Unfortunately, with a group like mine, I almost have to have something spelled out explicitly in the rules to prevent it.  Simply saying that it's completely unrealistic that in a one-on-one fight you're opponent is going to let you run around behind him every time you attack isn't sufficient.

I had a simple way of sorting this out; I denied the modifier unless the character could move without being detected into the hexes behind their opponent, and allow their opponent a "pivot move" of up to two facing hex-sides if they were detected. One facing was free, the second hex-side cost 1/4 of their future method of movement. I allowed the PCs the same "combat pivot".

 

You can also do a pretty good job of ending this rules-lawyering simply by giving almost every experienced opponent an appropriate level of Defense Maneuver. It's pretty cheap to buy it in stages. (I find the players don't really care, anyway.) If the players abuse the rules and haven't selected this skill, just ask them "Why haven't you? The enemy is learning from you, too!"

[Tasha]

Running has no turn mode. So characters can face themselves at will.

 

Also attacking from behind only matters IF the defender isn't expecting an attack from that direction.

Champion Complete pg147
"SURPRISED
When a character is attacked from behind, above, by an invisible attacker, from ambush, or any similar situation, he may be Surprised by the attack. For Surprised to apply, the target must not be expecting an attack from that source.
GMs should interpret this in a common-sense fashion. For example, a character attacked from behind by a foe he doesn’t know is there is Surprised (even if he’s expecting trouble in general); he’s not Surprised by a foe simply stepping around behind him to attack from behind." (Emphasis is mine)

Taking a gander at the rules when there seems to be a question or a conflict over what the rules say, is always a good thing for the GM to do. I am pretty sure that this is the ways Surprise has always been handled in the system.

[Ninja-Bear]

I've noticed after helping my brother learn hero for fantasy that hero can be complex. The reason though that hero can be complex is due to flexible nature of the game. My brother wanted a single magic system for the game. I gave him four options and maybe two for the cleric. (In my defense I was trying to make the game to his tastes however he isn't use to a system that asks you how you want it. Hes use to a system that already made those decisions.) I myself am more of a tinker of the system. I hate coming up with stuff from scratch but like to modify existing source material. Which is a feature of the game system that I feel should be highlighted more.

[Pegasus40218]

Running has no turn mode. So characters can face themselves at will.

 

Also attacking from behind only matters IF the defender isn't expecting an attack from that direction.

 

Champion Complete pg147

"SURPRISED

When a character is attacked from behind, above, by an invisible attacker, from ambush, or any similar situation, he may be Surprised by the attack. For Surprised to apply, the target must not be expecting an attack from that source.

GMs should interpret this in a common-sense fashion. For example, a character attacked from behind by a foe he doesn’t know is there is Surprised (even if he’s expecting trouble in general); he’s not Surprised by a foe simply stepping around behind him to attack from behind." (Emphasis is mine)

 

Taking a gander at the rules when there seems to be a question or a conflict over what the rules say, is always a good thing for the GM to do. I am pretty sure that this is the ways Surprise has always been handled in the system.

 

Agree about looking over the rules when there's a conflict (and with my group there WILL be conflicts! ).  The last time I tried running HERO, CC had not been released yet, so we're using 6E1&2 -- which doesn't invalidate anything you said above.  However, here's why I (and I'm sure some other GMs) struggle with a system like HERO with a group such as I have.  The opening paragraph on "Surprised" reads:  "This Combat Modifier applies when a character is attacked from behind, above, by an invisible attacker, from ambush, or any other situation where he's surprised by the attack."  In many cases, the players will use this to argue that they should get a surprise bonus whenever any of these situations occur.  It's not until you get into the "When Suprised Applies" section (2 paragraphs later) that you run across the following statement:  "The GM should interpret the phrase 'expecting any attacks' in a common sense fashion."  This type of statement (the GM should interpret...) occurs frequently in HERO; and therein lies the problem.  The rules lawyers in my group want to and will always try to use the rules to force things to be handled / interpreted in a specific way.  The positive of this is that it helps to eliminate ambiguity and create consistency.  Leaving things open to situational interpretation risks inconsistency, which my players will not like, and will argue vehemently against...and as a part-time GM and part-time player, it often just isn't worth the inevitable hassles and arguments.

 

And before anyone asks -- Yes, we have multiple GMs in the group and tend to take turns running games for several months at a time.  Several of the people in the group refuse to even TRY to run for this group because they don't want to deal with the arguing.  Unfortunately, this hasn't been effective at getting the message across to the players to knock off the arguing, partly because someone else has always been willing to fall on their sword and run a game of some sort for everyone else to play.

 

...

 

On a side note, Tasha, I absolutely LOVE your 2-page guide to creating HERO system characters.  It has been an invaluable tool to me as both a player and a GM.  I was wondering if you or anyone else had ever attempted to put together a similarly concise guide to help GMs with establishing campaign parameters and what to watch for when reviewing player characters to see if they're over or under powered for the campaign?

[Tasha]

On a side note, Tasha, I absolutely LOVE your 2-page guide to creating HERO system characters.  It has been an invaluable tool to me as both a player and a GM.  I was wondering if you or anyone else had ever attempted to put together a similarly concise guide to help GMs with establishing campaign parameters and what to watch for when reviewing player characters to see if they're over or under powered for the campaign?

 

Thank you, I am really happy that it's helped you a lot. Writing that solidified what I instinctively "knew' for years, but also helped me make characters that didn't waste points on unneeded stats (unless I wanted to do that for some RP reasons).

 

I have thought about one for establishing campaign Parameters. IIRC my building HS characters has a little section on figuring out what values some of the parameters should have. Just need to make time and think about it some.

[Ninja-Bear]

Tasha I would say that one thing that should be addressed in more detail would be when and why the use of optional rules.  Some questions that I consider when choosing optional rules are how many are playing in the group? How experienced with the sytem are the players? How much time do you have to play the game? I.e. I want to complete this adventure in x amount of hours and in one sitting. Do your players want that much detail?

 

For example, I have a fantasy game with my brother. As of right now he requested a simple game, so we are not using STR min for extra damage.  We aren't using hit locations, instead we are using the average sectional defenses rule. (Shoot I couldn't talk him into trading CSL to DC during the last game.) We have an understanding that as we play if he wants to add more details/rules, then we will.

 

And this information comes back to building charcters too. If certain rules aren't used, then you may not want to buy powers that deal with those specific rules. another example for a pulp game I created a martial artist that has defenses from impairing and disabling rules. We wern't using those rules so in effect, that power became wasted points, howevefr since I had extra points and I thought it added flavor, it wasn;t a waste to me.
 

[Tasha]

My opinion about Hit Location is that for Heroic Level games you need to use it. Heroic Games are all about Killing attacks, and the 6e Killing attack stun nerf would make Heroic games without Hit Location take days to run. That's because 2x stun on average wouldn't do diddly squat to feed stun into the targets. With Hit location you average a x3 location more often than not.

[Ninja-Bear]

Yes but Tasha how many people worry about stun in a heroic game-especially fantasy? But if do then you have a valid point.

[esampson]

Yes but Tasha how many people worry about stun in a heroic game-especially fantasy? But if do then you have a valid point.

If they aren't worrying about it they really should be. Fighter types in heavy armor (chainmail or better) will probably suffer from some sort of serious stun based effect (being stunned or being knocked unconcious) long before their body becomes an issue in your average fight. Over time accumulated body could become an issue but it is really not very expensive for someone to have a fairly potent 'out of combat' (incantations, gestures, full concentration, foci, and extra time) healing effect that can be used to heal up the fighters between battles.

[Tasha]

Yes but Tasha how many people worry about stun in a heroic game-especially fantasy? But if do then you have a valid point.

Most of them, Under 5e and earlier you would nearly always knock someone out before you killed them. Assuming 3-8 rDef as average.  Since the Stun Mults on the Hit Location charts didn't change with 6e, you can still have the same gameplay as earlier editions.

 

It's one reason that I disliked the stun Multiplier Nerf in 6e. While it was an easy answer that wouldn't stir up the conservative elements in our community, it totally screwed Heroic Campaigns that choose to not use the Hit Location Charts. Leaving the Hit Location charts alone kept the folk who disliked the nerf, semi happy because they could always use Hit Location if they wanted the Range of Stun options back.

[Steve]

I've always preferred to use the Hit Locations chart in Heroic-level games, so the change in the Stun multiplier only affected my Superheroic-level games. It's one extra roll, but then so was doing the stun multiplier die unless you had a different colored die amidst your damage roll.

 

I tend to play with people who seem to be pretty lucky at getting Vitals shots, so combats often don't take longer than a Turn or two. And when a critical hit tags someone in the head or vitals, they're pretty much done.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ok Esampson and Tasha let me rephase what I said about stun in Heroic games. The group I play with don't normally worry about stun. I wondered if that is just us or is it a more common phenominum? Now to me the stun multiplier isn't an issue as of yet cause I'm still using 5th.  However perhaps if you wanted to eliminate the hit location roll, then perhaps monsters take a physical limiitation of x1 1/2 Stun? Or  perhaps house rule everyone gets a free +1 Stun multiplier?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yes but Tasha how many people worry about stun in a heroic game-especially fantasy? But if do then you have a valid point.

 

Its rare anyone dies before being knocked out in a heroic game.  Especially with hit locations, as people note.  Stun is cheaper to buy now, but its not that big a change.

[Ninja-Bear]

This one thing that bothers me. A bunch of you saying that you need to use hit locations. Hit locations are optional. The game shouldn't depend on optional rules-hence then they aren't optional.

[Ninja-Bear]

This one thing that bothers me. A bunch of you saying that you need to use hit locations. Hit locations are optional. The game shouldn't depend on optional rules-hence then they aren't optional.

[Hugh Neilson]

For me, Hit Locations work because they extend the volatility of killing attacks to Normal attacks as well.  A Head Shot with a staff or club is also devastating to the target. The Stun Multiple at 1d3 reduces the volatility of KA's STUN to better match a Normal attack (the KA is better at doing BOD, the normal attack at doing STUN).

 

The 1d6-1 KA multiple made KA's the attack of choice to do STUN damage to high defense opponents in Supers games.  Now that is not the case.  Hit Locations smoothed that volatility out in (most) Heroic games, so normal attacks were viable alongside KA's.

 

I'd like a character focused on normal attacks (a staff fighter; a Monk; a spellcaster with normal damage spells) to be a viable choice.  Hit locations gives him a damage multiplier on a head shot as well, and makes him a more viable choice.  STUN multiple for KA's and no potential for normal attacks to get a hit similar to a x5 KA hit makes the normal attack a poor choice.

 

The reduced STUN multiple makes KA a poor choice to inflict STUN, while remaining the best choice to do BOD. However, as Tasha notes, most Hero games are designed to be pretty low lethality, so rDEF is pretty high relative to BOD damage.  If the game is not intended to see a lot of lethality, then KA becomes a poor attack choice. But why would we expect killing to be an effective tactic in a low lethality game?

[薔薇語]

Ninja Bear, I agree with you in thinking that they are optional rules (which they are) and needn't be used in order to have an enjoyable game. Indeed, I don't think I ever played in a game where they were used. Even in our non-supers games we never used them. That said, I can easily see myself using them and think they can add a lot of flavor to the system but that is a far cry from being a necessary component. 

 

 

La Rose. 

[Steve]

Another reason I liked using hit locations in Heroic games was for wound tracking, impairment and disablement. It also adds a bit more color to describe limbs breaking on a foe than to just tally up generic Body points. A lucky shot to an arm, shoulder or even a hand can also take a foe out of a fight without killing them.

[Ninja-Bear]

Another reason I liked using hit locations in Heroic games was for wound tracking, impairment and disablement. It also adds a bit more color to describe limbs breaking on a foe than to just tally up generic Body points. A lucky shot to an arm, shoulder or even a hand can also take a foe out of a fight without killing them.

And there is nothing wrong with this. My initial point about hit locations is that it is additional work. I was saying though that I think new GMs could use advice on when to use optional rules and how it affects game play such as more rolls and more tracking (downside) but more "realism" and less fatality (positive).

[Tasha]

This one thing that bothers me. A bunch of you saying that you need to use hit locations. Hit locations are optional. The game shouldn't depend on optional rules-hence then they aren't optional.

 

in 5e Hit Locations are optional and the game works fine. In 6e with Killing Attack's getting their Stun Nerfed, Hit Locations are the only way to make 80% of all of the Weapons Viable choices for PC's. Either that or the game turns into feed the most body into the bad guys before they do the same to you. Which causes Heroic Level Hero to lose it's Cinematic Flavor. So IMHO Hit Locations are Mandatory for Heroic Genre Games.

[Tasha]

For me, Hit Locations work because they extend the volatility of killing attacks to Normal attacks as well.  A Head Shot with a staff or club is also devastating to the target. The Stun Multiple at 1d3 reduces the volatility of KA's STUN to better match a Normal attack (the KA is better at doing BOD, the normal attack at doing STUN).

 

The 1d6-1 KA multiple made KA's the attack of choice to do STUN damage to high defense opponents in Supers games.  Now that is not the case.  Hit Locations smoothed that volatility out in (most) Heroic games, so normal attacks were viable alongside KA's.

 

I'd like a character focused on normal attacks (a staff fighter; a Monk; a spellcaster with normal damage spells) to be a viable choice.  Hit locations gives him a damage multiplier on a head shot as well, and makes him a more viable choice.  STUN multiple for KA's and no potential for normal attacks to get a hit similar to a x5 KA hit makes the normal attack a poor choice.

 

The reduced STUN multiple makes KA a poor choice to inflict STUN, while remaining the best choice to do BOD. However, as Tasha notes, most Hero games are designed to be pretty low lethality, so rDEF is pretty high relative to BOD damage.  If the game is not intended to see a lot of lethality, then KA becomes a poor attack choice. But why would we expect killing to be an effective tactic in a low lethality game?

except that for most Heroic Level games, Killing attack weapons are the norm. I can't see playing Fantasy Hero without Swords, Axes, Daggers etc. or Modern Adventures or Pulp Adventures without guns. All of those are Killing Attacks. If you don't use Hit Location you end up with a HIGHLY deadly game, which completely Changes the way the whole system feels. You change from a cinematic game where deaths sometimes happen to a gritty game where people die quite a bit as they run out of BODY before they run out of STUN. If you want to run a deadly game, don't use the Hit Location charts that don't really add much complexity to the game.

 

"Why would we expect Killing attacks to be an effective tactic in a low lethality game?" Again it's about changing the whole feel of the game. Foes usually end up koed or dead, and most PC's end up wounded but alive. You take away a valuable GM tool to increase challenge that doesn't kill the PC"s right off.

 

The Stun Multiplier Nerf always felt like the WRONG answer to one Genre's problem. It fixed Superheroic games but screwed every other genre in doing so.

 

Not using Hit Location may seem like you are eliminating rolls, but you are actually adding rolls. As then you stop using Sectional Armor, and end up going back to Activation rolls on armor depending on coverage. So on a hit you are making the Defender make an Activation roll that feels very abstract vs knowing that your Vest covers shoulders though Vitals. I think it's really a wash, but Hit Location just is a lot more fun. It's fun knowing when you hit someone in the Vitals and put one though the heart of Lungs, or that you hit someone in the head. YMMV.

[Balabanto]

Oh, but my group seems to have these issues regardless of system...DnD, Pathfinder, HERO -- it's all about min-maxing (particularly combat capabilities) and then arguing rules constantly. We play every week for 4 to 5 hours, and spend 30 to 60 minutes arguing some rule or another.

 

As an example of the sort of thing that happened in our first attempt to play HERO, the players discovered that they get a positional advantage for being behind an opponent. In one combat, they found themselves facing a group of opponents roughly equal in number though slightly weaker individually. The combat basically devolved into a game of "leap frog" as every character on his turn moved to get behind his opponent. When the opponent would turn to fight, on their next turn, they'd use their movement to circle behind the opponent again. Now, maybe there's something I missed in the rules regarding zones of control or adjustments of facing, but I couldn't find anything. I wouldn't have a problem if players using teamwork (successfully) were able to gain positional advantages; but, just because you have a certain amount of movement (6 to 12 meters minimum) shouldn't automatically result in you being able to circle behind your opponent every single time you get a phase to attack him from behind. Unfortunately, with a group like mine, I almost have to have something spelled out explicitly in the rules to prevent it. Simply saying that it's completely unrealistic that in a one-on-one fight you're opponent is going to let you run around behind him every time you attack isn't sufficient.

 

Admittedly, this is more of a "player problem" than a "system problem", but it does pose certain challenges when trying to introduce a system like HERO to a group like this. As the guy trying to run the game, I can guarantee that any ambiguity in the rules will invite an opportunity for exploitation.

 

For example, in a recent Pathfinder game, there was a rules argument regarding attacking while grappling (or grappled). One of the characters -- a grappling specialist successfully grappled a small dragon (about the size of a large horse). In the description of the "grappled" condition, it states "A grappled creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform..." In the section on combat maneuvers, the rules state "Instead of attempting break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that only requires one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."

 

Well, the initial ruling was that, in spite of being grappled, the dragon was able to use ALL of its attacks (2 claws, a bite, two wing buffets, a rear-claw rake, and a tail slap) -- all directed at the grappler. Under that ruling, the dragon proceeded to inflict enough damage to almost kill the grappler in a single round. A 45-minute rules argument ensued with the players arguing that in the second rules quote above the rules state that you can make "AN attack" -- implying only one, while the GM argued that in the description of the grappled condition, the text explicitly refers to "attacks" (plural) implying that the dragon can use all of its attacks since they're natural weapons (and thus should be considered "light"). Of course, from a simply visual perspective, this would require that the grappler is extremely stupid with no survival instincts and grappled the dragon from a position that would allow it to bring all four claws to bear (directly underneath it). A more "realistic" visualization would involve grappling from the side or back of the creature (unless the dragon were the one grappling). Applying that visualization, a reasonable person could agree that perhaps the dragon should be able to reasonably attack (with the aforementioned -2) with a bite (assuming a traditional long-necked dragon), maybe one of the fore claws, one wing (if the grappler is on the side) and the tail. But that option was not even considered because the rules-lawyering required that the dragon either be able to use ALL or ONE.

 

Yes...my group will argue rules over the plurality of a word in the rules...So, you can imagine the challenges someone like me -- who is relatively inexperienced with the HERO System -- is going to face when attempting to run HERO for such a group.

Running has no turn mode. Block makes everything about your ocv and not your dcv.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This one thing that bothers me. A bunch of you saying that you need to use hit locations. Hit locations are optional. The game shouldn't depend on optional rules-hence then they aren't optional.

 

Some genres work best with hit locations and other optional rules.  Others don't.  Superhero games for instance are best without the bleeding and hit locations.  A gritty game set in WWI would be wrong without them and impairing, etc.  So whe people say "need" they mean "your genre won't be very well represented without them" rather than "you're compelled to use this by the might of Thor."