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

[Tasha]

I have just seen players use those location whiff hit after hit when using those alternate locations. When they switched to calling chest shots their damage became way more consistent. Which IMHO seems to be a better bet in the long run. It's also more consistent with what I always hear from firearms trainers, aka "Aim at Center of Mass".That one in six change of hitting the Stun lottery is similar to the original mechanic, though at least there if you didn't roll the magic number you could still be effective.

Sorry, -4 is a LOT of CV in most games, to waste it on a shot that has only a 1in 3 chance of being meaningful is wasteful of a phase IMHO. It's saying that in your turn(most heroic characters tend to be spd 3 in my experience) you only have one phase that you can be helpful to the combat. Granted you have a 50% chance on that phase to do devastating amounts of stun and body. I would rather spend the phase doing something that I Know will be helpful. I know too many gamers have really bad luck with clinch (ie do or die) rolls. Yeah you MAY roll a 1 and get a head shot, but you are probably going to roll a TON of 2-5 before you get any single Head Shot.

I had a sniper/marksman who had CV to burn with her Skill levels, penalty skill levels vs Hit Location, and weapon mods. It just always felt better to do damage even if that was a x3 stun mult than roll average with the alternate Targeting methods. Yeah, when I rolled a 1 it was winning the lottery, but I more often rolled 2-5 and wasted my phase. Heck, rolling some levels into DC and choosing to Chest shot (Called location 10 or 11). seemed like a better deal in the long run.

IMHO you are always better reducing your damage's volatility when you are able.

[薔薇語]

As someone who never uses the Hit Location charts, I can gladly say that I am thankful for that now. The level of craziness that seems to spring forth from it would seem to be as much as a hassle as it looked initially. 

All in all, if you avoid the thing, then things become more streamlined and it is easier to account for things.

Are Killing Attacks too powerful: Up the R.Defense on characters. 
Are Killing Attacks doing too much STUN: Buy higher Defenses - maybe even slap on "only vs KA"
Both of the above: Cap the DCs for KA in general
Same goes for Normal Attacks. 

No muss, no fuss. ^^

 

La Rose. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I have just seen players use those location whiff hit after hit when using those alternate locations. When they switched to calling chest shots their damage became way more consistent. Which IMHO seems to be a better bet in the long run. It's also more consistent with what I always hear from firearms trainers, aka "Aim at Center of Mass".That one in six change of hitting the Stun lottery is similar to the original mechanic, though at least there if you didn't roll the magic number you could still be effective.

 

Sorry, -4 is a LOT of CV in most games, to waste it on a shot that has only a 1in 3 chance of being meaningful is wasteful of a phase IMHO. It's saying that in your turn(most heroic characters tend to be spd 3 in my experience) you only have one phase that you can be helpful to the combat. Granted you have a 50% chance on that phase to do devastating amounts of stun and body. I would rather spend the phase doing something that I Know will be helpful. I know too many gamers have really bad luck with clinch (ie do or die) rolls. Yeah you MAY roll a 1 and get a head shot, but you are probably going to roll a TON of 2-5 before you get any single Head Shot.

 

I had a sniper/marksman who had CV to burn with her Skill levels, penalty skill levels vs Hit Location, and weapon mods. It just always felt better to do damage even if that was a x3 stun mult than roll average with the alternate Targeting methods. Yeah, when I rolled a 1 it was winning the lottery, but I more often rolled 2-5 and wasted my phase. Heck, rolling some levels into DC and choosing to Chest shot (Called location 10 or 11). seemed like a better deal in the long run.

 

IMHO you are always better reducing your damage's volatility when you are able.

 

You keep referring to a 2 as a wasted shot.,  It's also a head shot.  d6+3.  

 

So let's consider that volatility that, in your view, is always best reduced.  We're not fighting an equal this time, but a powerful foe with 8rDEF (top of the Very Powerful Heroic) and 8 normal def (matches rDEF like your example).  You go with your standard 3x multiple, so average 8 x 3 = 24 =8 STUN after defenses.

 

HeadShot gets 24, 24, 0,0,0, 8, an average of 9 2/3 per shot (20% more than your average) and a 1 in 3 chance of Stunning the target.  Which of you is more likely to win?

 

I was on the other side of this discussion a few years back (KA with 1d6-1 vs normal attack), but the math bears out the value of volatility when the opponent has higher defenses.

 

A further thought I have not really worked through - what if we applied the Hit Location chart on the same basis to both Normal and Killing attacks?

 

StaffMaster hits for his 25 STUN against that 6+6 defense target.  He lucks out with a head shot, so he doubles the STUN (before defense - a rule change) and passes 38 STUN to the target.  His 7 BOD does not get past defenses, so its doubling is irrelevant. A Stomach hit passes 37 - 12 = 25 STUN through, while a Shoulder hit gets 13 and a Hand or Arm hit does nothing.

 

Swordsman hits for 8 BOD and gets an average x2 on his Stun Multiple (1d3) for 8 and 16.  Head shot - he doubles the 2 BOD past rDEF, inflicting 4 BOD,  Double his stun to 32, subtract defenses and he gets 20 STUN through.  Stomach shot gets 2 BOD and [16x1.5 = 24 - 12 =] 12 STUN.  Shoulder hit still passes 2 BOD  and 4 STUN through.  Hand/Arm inflicts 1 BOD and no STUN.

 

The Normal attack is clearly superior at non-volatile stun damage, and the KA does BOD damage and has the potential for a higher hit (STUN matching the Normal attack, but with more BOD volatility, big hits come more often - as do small ones).

 

The KA becomes a bit less loved by PC's, unless the typical opponent generally runs out of BOD first.  Now we have the problem that the KA is more feared by PC's (they have to limp along with lower BOD to the next battle) than NPCs (they appear once and either win or lose, whether KO'd or killed).  But the KA sure feels a lot more like a KILLING attack, while still passing STUN damage along, instead of a more effective means of stunning or KOing a powerful opponent.

[Hugh Neilson]

As someone who never uses the Hit Location charts, I can gladly say that I am thankful for that now. The level of craziness that seems to spring forth from it would seem to be as much as a hassle as it looked initially. 

All in all, if you avoid the thing, then things become more streamlined and it is easier to account for things.

 

Are Killing Attacks too powerful: Up the R.Defense on characters. 

Are Killing Attacks doing too much STUN: Buy higher Defenses - maybe even slap on "only vs KA"

Both of the above: Cap the DCs for KA in general

Same goes for Normal Attacks. 

 

No muss, no fuss. ^^

 

La Rose. 

 

First, if I have to take special steps to address KA's of equal DC, that seems like a balance issue.  "Defenses only vs KA's *" or "Lower DC limit on KA's than Normal attack" seems to admit that an equal priced KA is the superior attack choice.

 

* or 50% STUN Dam Red, only KA's with a 4+ STUN Mult, 75% only if a 5+ x STUN mult, as I bought for a powered armor character some years back

 

The hit location chart has historically better leveled the field between KA and Normal, at least in my experience.  The math seems to bear that out.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Its simple enough.  Rejecting a rule or aspect of a game because people will argue over it is going to lead you to stopping play any games at all.  Gamers debate rules, particularly on forums like this.

[薔薇語]

To resolve any confusion that came up upthread about which rules book is considered official, Steve has made an official announcement:

"Each GM is certainly free to decide which book he wants to regard as authoritative for his campaigns, but for purposes of official rules answers provided here, I don't even consider looking at CC. The 6E core rulebook is the one and only source of official rules information for my purposes, and any answers I provide here should be considered as adding to or expanding upon what it says."

 

La Rose. 

[Lucius]

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?

 

It's just your group, Ninja Bear. Everyone else uses STUN.  

 

 

IMHO you are always better reducing your damage's volatility when you are able.

So, do you often use Set Effect on the damage of your attacks?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that volatility is good for attackers but not for defenders. But since it's hard to have a character who NEVER gets attacked....

[Hugh Neilson]

Lucius, while I agree that wanting reduced volatility logically leads to Set Effect, Set Effect also discounts the damage from average (3 points per d6 Set versus 3.5 Average). Still, if less volatility were advantageous, "Always Does Average Damage" would seem to be an advantage. A +1/4 Advantage would reduce 15d6 to 12d6, which averages 42 points, and Set Effect on 15d6 would be 45 points, so it's a pretty cheap "advantage" to remove volatility.

 

To me, there are three reasons no one likes Set Effect. Two are mathematical - the average is reduced; and volatility is good more often than it is bad.

 

The third is psychological - we all remember the big hits, and there's something about those dice hitting the table. The third is the one, for example, that I think keeps d20 games from "x hp per level" rather than "roll a hit die". I've seen more than a few offer average, or near average (even average rounded up instead of down on one occasion) to very little takeup. "I could roll a 12 - I don't want 6 or 7" never seems to incorporate "I could also roll a 1".

[薔薇語]

First, if I have to take special steps to address KA's of equal DC, that seems like a balance issue.  "Defenses only vs KA's *" or "Lower DC limit on KA's than Normal attack" seems to admit that an equal priced KA is the superior attack choice.

 

* or 50% STUN Dam Red, only KA's with a 4+ STUN Mult, 75% only if a 5+ x STUN mult, as I bought for a powered armor character some years back

 

The hit location chart has historically better leveled the field between KA and Normal, at least in my experience.  The math seems to bear that out.

 

 

I think maybe you read a bit more into my comment than was warranted. I wasn't saying that  one needs those kinds of toolkit solutions to solve some KA or ND defects but rather that if there were issues with them, it would be easier to fix them bit by bit than fix them while also worrying about an extraneous abstractions that is the Hit Locations chart. 

 

At the end of the day it is always about our individual experiences with the system. Having never used the chart (minus when doing actual called shots), I never seemed to notice a big problem with ND vs KA. It could have been the way we built characters was somehow different, the levels of DC we used, or any number of other independent or compounding factors, but it was what it was. Obviously we are going to have different experiences. But at the end of the day, I think of the chart as being wholly optional and not needed to make the game playably better. If one encounters small issues, I think those issues can be resolved in more simplistic ways than adding on another chart to roll against. But of course if that is the flavor of experience you or your gaming group desire, it is there for a reason. 

 

La Rose. 

[Hugh Neilson]

At the end of the day it is always about our individual experiences with the system. Having never used the chart (minus when doing actual called shots), I never seemed to notice a big problem with ND vs KA. It could have been the way we built characters was somehow different, the levels of DC we used, or any number of other independent or compounding factors, but it was what it was. Obviously we are going to have different experiences. But at the end of the day, I think of the chart as being wholly optional and not needed to make the game playably better.

I agree on the experience front. For many years, I could not see the "Stun Lotto" problem. After it was presented mathematically, and I recognized the math bore the issue out, I also realized two things. First, our group tended not to use KAs against living targets in Supers games, so it never became an issue. That made it invisible to me. Second, I would lean to KA's for mooks, because a 2d6 KA might sometimes slip some damage through when a lot of agents/mooks were involved, but an 8d6 Blaster wouldn't. Wait a minute - doesn't that illustrate the issue? Of course it did - I just never saw it in that light.

 

So why were our forays into Fantasy Hero not an issue? Well, in part because (as Tasha says) pretty much everyone was using KA's, so a comparison to normal attacks wasn't happening. Second, though, the Normal Attacks also used Hit Locations, and could land a big hit too, where that did not happen in Supers.

 

I would suggest that, if optional rules do not make the game better, why bother having the option at all? They make certain styles and certain tones better. They add some nuances at the cost of added complexity, so not everyone wants that tradeoff. But if they bring no benefit to the gameplay, why have them at all?

 

I would never consider Hit Locations in Supers - the difference in CVs is too big, and penalty levels too cheap compared to points available. The Martial Artists would always Kick the bricks in the head for double damage. It could be done, but it would have to change the whole character balancing mechanics if a small investment in penalty skill levels could double damage ever time.

 

But I wouldn't think of playing Fantasy without them. They level the Killing/Normal playing field (not that this analysis had been done - that didn't motivate the decision), enhanced descriptiveness, linked the higher damage effect to a cause and meant combat felt like something beyond the same attacks (not a lot of granularity in those weapons, or a lot of variety in the attack types, compared to Supers) over and over again. But one more die roll had little impact on our play style (and we would otherwise be rolling a Stun Mult anyway).

 

Now that I think on it, though, Hit Locations were not optional in Fantasy Hero originally - they replaced the Stun Multiple. When we moved to one big, happy universal Hero system with 4e, the fact Hit Locations were optional never registered - these were a Fantasy staple not used in Supers.

[Lucius]

I want my character's attacks to be as volatile as possible, and attacks on my character to use set effect. Is that too much to ask?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says yes, it is in fact too much to ask.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not at all, Lucius.

 

Too much to receive, but certainly one can ASK for anything.

[Greywind]

Sure, but the set effect is automatically going to be twice your active defenses. Is that okay?

[薔薇語]

Sure, but the set effect is automatically going to be twice your active defenses. Is that okay?

 

Jokes on you! I only have a defense of 2! 

 

La Rose

[Greywind]

Jokes on you! I only have a defense of 2! 

 

La Rose

 

Well, sure, for you it'll only be 4. What about the guy with a defense of 20?

[Vondy]

IMHO you are always better reducing your damage's volatility when you are able.

 

 

Learn the curve. Live the curve. Love the curve.

 

That said, most of my games assume "center mass" unless a called shot is made.

 

This keeps things quick while allowing hit locations for dramatically apropos moves, etc.

[Lucius]

 

 

I'll take 0 DEF

 

Lucius Alexander

 

the palindromedary says that must be the most paradoxical path to invulnerability anyone's taken since Lucius Alexander proposed a character that would START with negative BODy

[Greywind]

In that case, you'll be pelted by marshmallows.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think an advantage that adds to minimum damage (but not max) would be useful for some rare effects.  +1/4 for each die having +1 minimum damage (so the die is 2-6 instead of 1-6, all 1's being shifted to 2) seems a possible cost.  This would greatly reduce the low end of volatility but not affect overall power.  I've used it for some magical weapons in my fantasy loot book.

[Grailknight]

I think a +1/4 advantage for +1 per die is in one of the APG's

[Ninja-Bear]

I think a +1/4 advantage for +1 per die is in one of the APG's

That's somerhing I was looking for. So as to allow the pcs to just use s.e. for mooks and regular rolls for named villians.

[Tasha]

 

It's just your group, Ninja Bear. Everyone else uses STUN.  

 

 

 

So, do you often use Set Effect on the damage of your attacks?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that volatility is good for attackers but not for defenders. But since it's hard to have a character who NEVER gets attacked....

 

I never use set effect on my attacks. I was actually talking tactically. I still like rolling for damage.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This is one of my fears with the present situation Hero Games is in.  From a Facebook post:

 

 

I'm new to Champions & HERO and would like to know where to start.

I have the Champions Complete book, and while it's great, I borrowed a friend's "Champions: The Super Roleplaying Game" (the 6th edition one). Somehow, I felt the Champions Complete digs very much into rules minutiae, but not as much setting as "Champions: the Super RPG". Also, being B&W, it felt strange to have a core book in B&W and a supplement in full-color.

 

Which book is right?  What do you buy to play?  Which are the rules?  What does a shop order?  We know, because we've been playing the game, but someone new trying it out?

[Hugh Neilson]

A brief "where do I begin" section on the Boards, maybe linked to the front page and the store, would be a good start. This document could spell out the relationship between Champions Complete, Fantasy Hero Complete and the 6e V1 and V2 rules.

This has been an issue for a while, though. I know a gaming store that was not happy to discover that "Champions: The Super Roleplaying Game" noted, on the back, that it had no rules to actually play a role playing game. This is something that should be made clear and obvious from the outset. By this, I don't mean "you will see it if you read the entire back cover". I mean the paragraph marketing the book clearly states "This book provides details for using the Hero System rules to create and run a Superhero game. The 6th Edition Core Rules are essential for this use of the book. It also discusses the Superhero genre in gaming, and may be useful to anyone playing or running a Superhero game in another system." Today, I would add that "[some/Much] of the material in this book also appears in the Champions Complete product." The front cover should include something like "THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE GAME - THE HERO SYSTEM RULES ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY CHAMPIONS" The only thing that should be more obvious is the title of the book itself.

Champions Complete, from Hero Store:

The ultimate super roleplaying game returns to reclaim its crown in *Champions Complete!* All the legendary flexibility and power of the renowned *HERO System* rules engine, plus all the superhero goodness *Champions* has been famous for over 30 years, now in one pulse-pounding, senses -shattering, heroic handbook of superpowered action!

At 240 pages, *Champions Complete* includes everything superhero gamers need, and nothing they don't. New players will love the unmatched freedom of *Champions* that allows them to create and play exactly the hero they imagine. Longtime fans will appreciate the tight, concise new approach, presenting the full game system in a fraction of its former length.

Note: This product (Champions Complete/HERO2000) is a stand-alone, moderately priced book for playing Champions: arguably the most popular and longest-running superhero game in roleplaying history. It contains all of the rules necessary to play Champions: The Super Roleplaying Game, with no other book required. Purchase includes PDF copy.

I like this, but would also include "This book includes considerable material also included in the 6th Edition Core Rules and Champions The Super Role Playing Game."

Champions is described as

Champions, the world’s greatest superhero roleplaying game! Champions 6th Edition for the HERO System is the ultimate guide to creating heroes, having superheroic adventures, and creating superhero campaigns. Soar through the skies, fight villains, and save humanity from all kinds of fiendish menaces!

It doesn't say "all the rules are in here", but I'd suggest a reader assuming that it contains the rules needed to create heroes and have adventures would not be out of line. It sure sounds like I can pick up and read the book, then start playing. It contains no clue that I also need a rulebook and has not been updated to note that a lot of this material is also in Champions Complete, which DOES include the rules.

6e could also comment (now) that these are "The complete rules, with many examples of how various elements can be used in a game and how they interact. A less detailed version of the Hero System rules is included in Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete."

If the buyer feels misled, he's probably not coming back to buy more products. If he bought Champions Complete because he was directed to this as his "entry level product for Supers gaming", he may well appreciate being directed to 6e Core for more detail on the rules, the various Champions Universe setting books, villains books, subgrenre books, etc.

Another important step, in my view, would be setting out the relation between 6e Core and the Complete books on the Rules Questions board. If Steve's recent statements are the Hero Policy, get it down at the top of the Boards (ie "Champions Complete purchasers - if your answers are in the Core Rules, all you're likely to get is a page reference). If the intent of the Complete products is to move away from the 6e 2 volume core rules, then the current Rules Question Board approach is not consistent with that intent, and that discrepancy should be addressed. If I buy Champions Complete based on its claim that no other books are required, but I get referred to the 2 volume rules set when I ask a rules question on the company's message board, in a folder only the company's rules line leader can reply to, I'm not sure I'd consider the book description to be very accurate.

ADDENDUM: With Fantasy Hero Complete, we will now have three versions of the rules, with three different authors*. If the Rules Question board does not acknowledge two of the three (the ones which will be in print, and which are marketed to new Hero gamers...), I think that's a serious issue for Hero.

OOPS - we have four - I forgot Monster Hunter International (Steve's the author so we only have three authors). [And 5e is still in some game stores, as is PS238, and then there's the LARP version...]  Looks like MHI is the Basic rules (that's five) with some expansions.  There is also some criticism that MHI uses rules in its write-ups that are not included in the basic rules themselves, which is problematic for a game marketed as standing alone.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The system is moving away from the "all our books look the same" pattern and that should help, but it really is not very clear what is the rules and since each new book is printing the rules again, its even less clear for buyers, I fear.