7th Edition thoughts

[Beast]

already done in 6th ed

you cam just buy resistant def and flavor w/ limitations for armor or forcefields

or use the resistant def advantage and just be tough

Something that has always bugged me about Hero as it developed is that its almost but not QUITE regular in some of the overlapping powers. 

Force Fields and Armor *aught* to be the same thing, one bought uses end and one not, for instance, but in practice the numbers don't quite work out that way.

 

I'd love to see someone take a step back from all the existing work and ask "how many of these powers are really other powers with advantages/limitations" and then re-calculate the numbers so it really all adds up.

[Tasha]

Something that has always bugged me about Hero as it developed is that its almost but not QUITE regular in some of the overlapping powers. 

Force Fields and Armor *aught* to be the same thing, one bought uses end and one not, for instance, but in practice the numbers don't quite work out that way.

 

I'd love to see someone take a step back from all the existing work and ask "how many of these powers are really other powers with advantages/limitations" and then re-calculate the numbers so it really all adds up.

 

Yes and no. Force Field and Armor became "Resistant Defenses" in 6e. It's basically Armor, you limit the ability to make a forcefield

 

There's this idea that's always floated around the Fanbase that you could factor down the powers into a few powers and then Advantage and Limit them to the other abilities. That's sort of ok, but it increases the difficulty of making powers by quite a bit. You end up spending even more space describing basic powers so people know the "Magic Formula" that makes that ability. Sort of what happened to Regeneration in 5e. It was defined in that edition as a form of heal that was constant etc, but the actual mix of modifiers were annoying to try to remember. So the power came back in 6e. We still don't have Instant change back. Which was a minor ability that allowed you to change your clothes. It's been kludged back in as a 2d6 minor Transform vs what the PC is wearing, but it doesn't have the same feel and you have to look it up in the book to know that's how you do the ability.

 

I think that removing any ability from the toolkit seems to always make things difficult on players. Which is counterproductive esp since we need NEW players.

[Tasha]

Barring any huge upheaval of the system.

One thing that I was contemplating last night would be to Split Initiative from Dex. There are already characters that semi officially use Ego as their Initiative. If we removed Initiative from Dex then we could define the special effect of a PC's Initiative any number of ways. It would also remove the need for the Lightning Reflexes Talent (which was just limited dex).

 

Then Dex and Initiative could be a point per Pip which ties together the primaries very well. It would also allow PC's to have very high Initiatives without having to have superhuman Dex rolls if they don't want to have such a high Dex Roll. This opens up even more variety in character generation.

 

Of course doing that will make my idea merging Dex into OCV and DCV make even MORE sense.

[Old Man]

I've often toyed with the idea of splitting up Dex myself, but I'd have split it roughly into Agility (gross motor) and Coordination (fine motor) which would have corresponded to DCV and OCV, respectively.  Related skills like Breakfall and Lockpicking also fell into either bucket pretty cleanly.  Either stat would have cost 2/pt, because I perceived Dex as being too cheap; this matches with my long held belief that Str should also cost 2/pt in fantasy. 

 

As for initiative, I once played a campaign where that was defined by Int + Dex (which we called Reaction, because there are already so many figured characteristics, what's one more?).  Mainly to balance things a little better for the spellcasters. 

[bigbywolfe]

Barring any huge upheaval of the system.

 

One thing that I was contemplating last night would be to Split Initiative from Dex. There are already characters that semi officially use Ego as their Initiative. If we removed Initiative from Dex then we could define the special effect of a PC's Initiative any number of ways. It would also remove the need for the Lightning Reflexes Talent (which was just limited dex).

 

Then Dex and Initiative could be a point per Pip which ties together the primaries very well. It would also allow PC's to have very high Initiatives without having to have superhuman Dex rolls if they don't want to have such a high Dex Roll. This opens up even more variety in character generation.

 

Of course doing that will make my idea merging Dex into OCV and DCV make even MORE sense.

I would consider separating Initiative from Dex, but rolling Dex into OCV/DCV is a horrible idea that takes a huge step backwards.  One of the best things about 6E is not having CV tied to Dex, so every ballerina isn't a combat monster and every hand to hand fighter isn't an Olympic gymnast .  To tie Dex back into CV puts that link back and defeats a large part of the benefit of getting rid of Figured Characteristics.  

[NuSoardGraphite]

I would consider separating Initiative from Dex, but rolling Dex into OCV/DCV is a horrible idea that takes a huge step backwards.  One of the best things about 6E is not having CV tied to Dex, so every ballerina isn't a combat monster and every hand to hand fighter isn't an Olympic gymnast .  To tie Dex back into CV puts that link back and defeats a large part of the benefit of getting rid of Figured Characteristics.

 

I personally have no problem with this concept. if you were to take a professional dancer or gymnast and give them the basic skill to fight (WF) then they would in all liklihood become very good, very quickly due to their natural grace and agility. without the training, they are -3 to their OCV anyway so they wont be a combat monster at all...they'll just be a little harder to hit, which makes sense considering their profession. (And that's if they don't freeze up in combat due to fear, or simply flee in terror, which is typically what a non-combatant would do)

 

And a regular combatant shouldnt have a high enough DEX to place them in the same category as an olympic gymnast anyway....combat skill levels make such a writeup possible, but everyone who plays Champions is so obsessed with saving points rather than making an accurate character that they ended up decoupling figureds to prevent Olympic Gymnast Syndrome anyway.

[Greywind]

Everyone has familiarity with fists and clubs for free, so there's no inherent -3 OCV there normally.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Everyone has familiarity with fists and clubs for free, so there's no inherent -3 OCV there normally.

And there's absolutely nothing stopping a GM from requiring a WF for those categories if he has a problem with high dex characters being good at combat without training, or utilizing a physical complication to mitigate the high CV.

[Tasha]

I would consider separating Initiative from Dex, but rolling Dex into OCV/DCV is a horrible idea that takes a huge step backwards.  One of the best things about 6E is not having CV tied to Dex, so every ballerina isn't a combat monster and every hand to hand fighter isn't an Olympic gymnast .  To tie Dex back into CV puts that link back and defeats a large part of the benefit of getting rid of Figured Characteristics.  

I would actually Split Initiative from Dex and then Split Dex into Agility and Dex which would get merged with OCV and DCV (like Old Man Suggested). There ARE too many skills attached to Dex. Also it might be nice to write up characters who are better on their feet than with their hands and vice versa. Of course the Merge does reattach OCV and DCV to a primary stat, which does have implications for folk who want to define the CV in ways that isn't tied to skill rolls.

[Tasha]

And there's absolutely nothing stopping a GM from requiring a WF for those categories if he has a problem with high dex characters being good at combat without training, or utilizing a physical complication to mitigate the high CV.

that's because most Hero GM's have been trained to have a strict stingy budget of points for Character Generation. It makes players way more obsessed about squeezing every point savings they can get out of a character. It's why I always give more points than the rules suggest. It allows for better characters that aren't loaded up with Limitations that weren't part of the PC's initial concept.

[mhd]

One thing I really liked in Artesia was that you had different base combat values depending on the type of maneuver you were making. Dexterity for the normal attacks, strength for the haymakers etc.

Only works if you don't need to derive CV's for each of them, of course.

[NuSoardGraphite]

that's because most Hero GM's have been trained to have a strict stingy budget of points for Character Generation. It makes players way more obsessed about squeezing every point savings they can get out of a character. It's why I always give more points than the rules suggest. It allows for better characters that aren't loaded up with Limitations that weren't part of the PC's initial concept.

I'm the opposite.  I prefer to start with less points so that players don't over-inflate their Characteristics.  However when it comes to designing powers, I always recommend Power Frameworks to my players to save points and so they can have more powers on their character.  I like to run my supers on the lower power scale (in 5th terms I would do 250pts, but I may even go lower than that) as I am more a fan of the X-men style of gameplay than the Avengers style. (and no, the X-men aren't ridiculously super powered behemoths outside of a few unique individuals.  Most of them are relatively low scale when it comes to supers)

[Old Man]

Actually that reminds me of another thing about Hero character advancement--at heroic levels it's really easy for characters to go from competent normals to physical freaks of nature after a few adventures.  Especially since STR is so cheap.  That could make sense in supers but for pulp or modern campaigns it's really weird.

 

Problem is I've never been able to think of ways to fix that.  If you restrict stat advancement over the course of the campaign, players will load up on stats during initial character creation.  But if you split out stats from skills/powers, it throws a real monkey wrench into certain character archetypes.

[mhd]

Max for creation and require some in-game justification after that?

Split points for stats/skills/powers?

 

Different post-creation cost structure?

[IndianaJoe3]

Actually that reminds me of another thing about Hero character advancement--at heroic levels it's really easy for characters to go from competent normals to physical freaks of nature after a few adventures.  Especially since STR is so cheap.  That could make sense in supers but for pulp or modern campaigns it's really weird.

 

How much XP/adventure are we talking about?

[Beast]

then make them pay to be freaks

make them pay x2 cp for anything above human norm
and remind them this is a heroic not super heroic game

Actually that reminds me of another thing about Hero character advancement--at heroic levels it's really easy for characters to go from competent normals to physical freaks of nature after a few adventures.  Especially since STR is so cheap.  That could make sense in supers but for pulp or modern campaigns it's really weird.

 

Problem is I've never been able to think of ways to fix that.  If you restrict stat advancement over the course of the campaign, players will load up on stats during initial character creation.  But if you split out stats from skills/powers, it throws a real monkey wrench into certain character archetypes.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Surprisingly, i've never had a problem with my players boosting their characteristics too high, with the exception of COM, but that was the result of a comliness war between two players who both wanted their character to be the best looking "bishonen" samurai in the party so they both ended up with a 24 COM by the end of the game.

[Theros]

Revisited combat rules to simplify it.

 

Less statistics. OCV and DCV could be changed to skills.

 

Combine statistic rolls and skill rolls. Now there are effect rolls and stat rolls done two different way.

 

Some old school RPG background should be removed.

[Lucius]

then make them pay to be freaks

make them pay x2 cp for anything above human norm

and remind them this is a heroic not super heroic game

Have you met the Florist Friars?

 

My suggestion is, make a player justify XP purchases, and exercise the veto power on anything you don't think fits.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary remembers when that forced Lucius' character to juggle bowling balls

The palindromedary notes that some people do remember the Florist Friars

[Old Man]

then make them pay to be freaks

make them pay x2 cp for anything above human norm

and remind them this is a heroic not super heroic game

What you describe here is called "Normal Characteristic Maxima", and it does nothing to solve the problem. Not if a human can go from STR 10 to STR 20 in the space of four adventures. Or ever.

 

"Exercising veto power" is usually equivalent to "Yes this rule is broken and you have to houserule it to fix it". In this instance though, I'm at something of a loss as far as better ways to solve it.

[Ndreare]

What you describe here is called "Normal Characteristic Maxima", and it does nothing to solve the problem. Not if a human can go from STR 10 to STR 20 in the space of four adventures. Or ever.

 

"Exercising veto power" is usually equivalent to "Yes this rule is broken and you have to houserule it to fix it". In this instance though, I'm at something of a loss as far as better ways to solve it.

 

No it is not, it is a common social convention in the game to make and maintain character that fit in the genre.

 

After all even if you give everyone the same 150 point characters, the only thing to stop them from making the 4d6 RKA, AOE Accurate +1/4, 1 Charges -2 power for a measly 25 points is the agreed social conventions. When the game master and the players sit around the table to make a game the assumption is everyone should make characters that fits the genre conventions. After all, everyone could just play a 50 point competent normal with 100 points in VPP otherwise.

[Beast]

If you are not going to set parameters and enforce them

you will get what you deserve
if said character wanted to purchase 2 HtH DCs for 8pts and had MA and +2 REC
I'd rather he buy the +10 str as that means he will burn more end
 

What you describe here is called "Normal Characteristic Maxima", and it does nothing to solve the problem. Not if a human can go from STR 10 to STR 20 in the space of four adventures. Or ever.

"Exercising veto power" is usually equivalent to "Yes this rule is broken and you have to houserule it to fix it". In this instance though, I'm at something of a loss as far as better ways to solve it.

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, NCM did not resolve the "out of genre" issues, it just made it more expensive. A 150 point character can still have a 30 STR - it costs him 20% of his CP instead of 13 1/3%. That doesn't make having the strength any less out of genre. Search the phrase "florist friars" for a much better, and more entertaining, example Lucius posted a few times.

 

NCN was easily avoided - all you needed was a limitation. Technically, a -0 Limitation (say, "Not if he cuts his hair" or "lost for a week if he eats fish on Friday") would do the trick.

 

A campaign setting that says "characters are normal humans with primary characteristics capped at 20 points" does the trick just fine.

[Zephrosyne]

Not to mention, according to 6E1 pg. 50, you can set the Normal Characteristic Maxima to a different number (lower or higher) depending on what is suitable for the power level of the campaign in question.  I've never experienced a problem with over purchasing Characteristics but in fairness, I have never used Hero System for heroic level campaigns so that may be part of the reason why.  That being said, I do use the Normal Characteristic Maxima for Speed no matter what the campaign is.  I do think it is the responsibility to the gm to set campaign parameters (in writing) in the beginning of the campaign and see to it that they are adhered to.  This usually stops a lot of foolishness before it even begins.

[Lucius]

What you describe here is called "Normal Characteristic Maxima", and it does nothing to solve the problem. Not if a human can go from STR 10 to STR 20 in the space of four adventures. Or ever.

Agreed. I think I once called Normal Characteristic Maxima "a problem masquerading as a solution in search of a problem."

 

"Exercising veto power" is usually equivalent to "Yes this rule is broken and you have to houserule it to fix it". In this instance though, I'm at something of a loss as far as better ways to solve it.

With this I can't agree. There are games in which it may be wholly appropriate for a character to start at STR 15 and raise it to 30. We don't need a rule to prevent things that, at least sometimes, ought to be done. We need a system that gives player groups and individual Game Operations Directors the freedom to set the tone of their specific game - including by exercising veto power to reject couch potatoes becoming Olympians after a single training montage when it's not the kind of game where that's appropriate.

 

Remember, only YOU can prevent Florist Friars!

 

edit: To be clear, I am disagreeing with the statement that "Exercising veto power" is usually equivalent to "Yes this rule is broken and you have to houserule it to fix it". I don't disagree with the statement about there being no "better ways to solve it." The ONLY other way to solve it is to abandon the idea of a generic, universal system.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedaries are appropriate in very few games, actually