7th Edition thoughts

[Lucius]

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.

I can't resist jumping back in to say - you can ALSO avoid it by putting an Advantage on a Characteristic. You can actually make a Characteristic CHEAPER by putting an ADVANTAGE on it!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary buys +20 BOD with Variable Special Effects

[Ndreare]

I do not want a rule changed. If we are playing The Seven Sorcerers I need them to be able to spend xp however they want. If we are playing buddy cops then there needs to be a reason.

 

In our group this is accomplished by letting all the players approve character changes. If I am planning on spending my xp to raise my wizards strength then I simply mention hey I think Archive needs some more strength. If someone has a concern that will make the game less fun they say "don't do that it will make him look silly" or "you know Rob, that will steal allot of Dave's thunder".

We are playing a wooly social game so why would you want to do something that makes it less fun?

Most of us wouldn't do a little conversation can take care of how the xp is spent.

 

PS; on the other topic of this thread there is no rules against making your own advantage so why not have Ego adds to effect or intelligence ads to effect as modifiers also?

 

No concept is being penalized from what I can tell.

[Hugh Neilson]

PS; on the other topic of this thread there is no rules against making your own advantage so why not have Ego adds to effect or intelligence ads to effect as modifiers also?

 

No concept is being penalized from what I can tell.

"My character is superhumanly strong and has powerful claws" 30 STR, 2d6 HKA - 50 points, 4d6 HKA, all the benefits of a 30 STR

 

"My character is weak and puny, and has powerful claws" 0 STR, 4d6 HKA - 50 points, 4d6 HKA and none of the benefits of a 30 STR

 

"My character is weak and puny, and has powerful claws, and a smarter player" 0 STR, 4d6 RKA, no range - 30 points, all benefits of the second character and the advantages of Spreading that RKA, which a HKA cannot do

 

But why would you buy a ranged killing attack to simulate claws on your hands when you have a HTH Killing Attack power? Well, because the game forces me to spend extra points if I select the more intuitive mechanic to build the desired effect.

 

I think it is reasonable to suggest the second concept is, relative to the first, penalized. If you prefer, we can say the first concept is "rewarded" - but I don't see "rewarding some concepts" differently from "penalizing some concepts".

 

I also find it quite reasonable to conclude the third character's build is rewarded relative to the second character's, which is the same thing as the second character being penalized.

[Grailknight]

"My character is superhumanly strong and has powerful claws" 30 STR, 2d6 HKA - 50 points, 4d6 HKA, all the benefits of a 30 STR

 

"My character is weak and puny, and has powerful claws" 0 STR, 4d6 HKA - 50 points, 4d6 HKA and none of the benefits of a 30 STR

 

"My character is weak and puny, and has powerful claws, and a smarter player" 0 STR, 4d6 RKA, no range - 30 points, all benefits of the second character and the advantages of Spreading that RKA, which a HKA cannot do

 

But why would you buy a ranged killing attack to simulate claws on your hands when you have a HTH Killing Attack power? Well, because the game forces me to spend extra points if I select the more intuitive mechanic to build the desired effect.

 

I think it is reasonable to suggest the second concept is, relative to the first, penalized. If you prefer, we can say the first concept is "rewarded" - but I don't see "rewarding some concepts" differently from "penalizing some concepts".

 

I also find it quite reasonable to conclude the third character's build is rewarded relative to the second character's, which is the same thing as the second character being penalized.

 

Character 1  has the benefits of 30 STR but is vulnerable to Drain STR. Still he has the STR to do other things like Martial AZrts that are nonlethal.

 

Character 2 does his 4d6 HKA all the time. Drain STR doesn't bother him but look out if he gets an AID.

 

Character 3 is now vulnernable to Block and Deflection and the spreading ability is limited to adjacent targets in HTH. He may also be subject to the Meta-rule about buying powers the most expensive way

[Hugh Neilson]

Are Drains and Aid's sufficiently common to merit that kind of a bonus? I don't believe they are.

 

Deflection does not work against any attack that lacks range, IIRC. And 6e Deflection is just an extension of Block, which can Block ranged attacks by default. Deflection permits them to be Blocked at range. I much prefer the 6e model, as there is no argument that a Ranged attack with No Range slips by a Block automatically.

 

Character 1 should similarly be required to buy his KA in the most expensive way, which would be either a 4d6 HKA, STR Does Not Add, or a 4d6 RKA with No Range, for 40 points instead of the 30 he spent on his HKA.

 

That metarule is the most abused and misquoted in the books. It should logically require buying Blast, Alternate CV (MOCV and MDCV), AVAD Mental Defense, Invisible Power Effects, Line of Sight Range - what's this "Mental Blast" crap? READ THE METARULE, MUNCHKIN!

[Grailknight]

Are Drains and Aid's sufficiently common to merit that kind of a bonus? I don't believe they are.

 

Deflection does not work against any attack that lacks range, IIRC. And 6e Deflection is just an extension of Block, which can Block ranged attacks by default. Deflection permits them to be Blocked at range. I much prefer the 6e model, as there is no argument that a Ranged attack with No Range slips by a Block automatically.

 

Character 1 should similarly be required to buy his KA in the most expensive way, which would be either a 4d6 HKA, STR Does Not Add, or a 4d6 RKA with No Range, for 40 points instead of the 30 he spent on his HKA.

 

That metarule is the most abused and misquoted in the books. It should logically require buying Blast, Alternate CV (MOCV and MDCV), AVAD Mental Defense, Invisible Power Effects, Line of Sight Range - what's this "Mental Blast" crap? READ THE METARULE, MUNCHKIN!

 

Drains are very common in my games, not so much Aid

 

You did kinda invite the Meta-Rule comment in the way  you phrased  character 3's concept.

[Lucius]

Drains are very common in my games, not so much Aid

Then I would say you play in an uncommon game.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Down the drain on a palindromedary

[Ninja-Bear]

What meta-rule? I'm lost. (Though not the first time)

[Grailknight]

Then I would say you play in an uncommon game.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Down the drain on a palindromedary

 

The Authorities use them mostly to keep Supers in line. I try to keep tech available below powers so Drains and NND's in the 30-40 point range are what the SWAT and ESWAT teams use. 

[Grailknight]

What meta-rule? I'm lost. (Though not the first time)

 

The one that says generally " If there are multiple accurate ways to model a power, the most expensive is the valid build".

[IndianaJoe3]

The one that says generally " If there are multiple accurate ways to model a power, the most expensive is the valid build".

 

I prefer, "If there are multiple accurate ways to model a power, the least complex is the valid build." I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

[Ninja-Bear]

The one that says generally " If there are multiple accurate ways to model a power, the most expensive is the valid build".

Ok thanks

[Ninja-Bear]

I prefer, "If there are multiple accurate ways to model a power, the least complex is the valid build." I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

I tend to go this route myself.

[Ninja-Bear]

The more I read the game designers, whether original or not, the more that I see that even they don't hold an inflexible mind to the rules. In the BBB there is a blurb on how to use it and if you dont like it, change it. What ultimately is important is to play a game that YOU enjoy with rules you are happy with.

[NuSoardGraphite]

The one that says generally " If there are multiple accurate ways to model a power, the most expensive is the valid build".

Dumbest "meta-rule" ever.

[BlueCloud2k2]

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.

 

My rule with low powered games is that you can only raise a Characteristic by one point at a time. This is to help simulate realism.

 

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.

 

Going from 10 STR to 20 STR in a single session sounds like a "Radiation Accident" to me.

Dumbest "meta-rule" ever.

 

I think this was due to individuals building a Telekinesis power as Flight Usable as an Attack.

[Old Man]

My rule with low powered games is that you can only raise a Characteristic by one point at a time. This is to help simulate realism.

Which makes perfect sense. So players are thus incentivized to put all their points into stats at character creation, because it's easier to buy skills with XP. This is the problem I'm wrestling with.

[Tasha]

What that does is incentivize players into spending their xp in little dribs every session. It penalizes players who are more thoughtful (or forgetful) and want to save up points to buy stuff later. It also makes Players want to buy tons of stats at character creation.

I am of the lazy school of it's not worth worrying about strict realism. Honestly most RPGs spend too much time having the PC's constantly adventure. GM's rarely give PC time to actually realistically learn new things or actually train. Within the bounds of game balance, I allow players to spend the points where they like when they like.

[Hugh Neilson]

My rule with low powered games is that you can only raise a Characteristic by one point at a time. This is to help simulate realism.

What kind of game are you considering? The most common Heroic game is Fantasy, so I assume you also have rules to ensure realism in magical spells and firebreathibng dragons. Modern action hero is a bit easier - what rules do you adopt to make crashing through a plate glass window, or the real consequences of being repeatedly injured, knocked out, etc. are reflected in the game?

 

IOW, "realism" tends not to be a major part of most games, low powered or otherwise.

 

Then there's the manner in which it influences the players:

  

Which makes perfect sense. So players are thus incentivized to put all their points into stats at character creation, because it's easier to buy skills with XP. This is the problem I'm wrestling with.

  

What that does is incentivize players into spending their xp in little dribs every session. It penalizes players who are more thoughtful (or forgetful) and want to save up points to buy stuff later. It also makes Players want to buy tons of stats at character creation.

I often have a plan for my character's xp, so I will buy up characteristics one point at a time. I have gone so far as to buy SPD up starting with 3 points for +1 SPD Activates 8- (roll each PS 12) and move it up through the Activation rolls to Activate 15- before finally having that full point of SPD. [Never considered the NCM issue that limited stats don't double in costs...mainly as I was never buying it up above NCM in a heroic game...] I think I've done DEX pre-6e with "+1 DEX, No Figured, Activation" to cost 1 point, then spent the extra point net of SPD discount to make it a full DEX point as well.

 

But if I buy my +10 STR one point at a time over 10 games, and another player buys it in 5 point increments twice over 10 games, what difference does it make? We both end up with 10 STR higher than we started with - a substantial change. I might get a small advantage as we buy it up, since I'll have a couple extra points on him at various points in time. Does it make the Pulp game I last did this in feel "more realistic"? Not that I noticed. It just means I roll a lot of activation rolls (which is kind of fun for SPD, once a turn, not so much for DEX phase by phase), and sometimes hear a sigh from the GM before he asks my SPD THIS TIME.

 

I definitely see the incentive to buy stats at the outset, though. How often do you have to carve back something to fit the point budget, which you will later buy with xp? If I can buy those 5 2 point levels as soon as I have the XP, but can only buy that +5 CON spending 2 xp at a time, I may as well buy the CON at CharGen and leave the levels for later (unless I never expect to have 4 xp to spend at once, of course) rather than buy 3 CON and 2 levels at the outset, and change less markedly in either area as I earn my first 10 xp.

 

Wouldn't it more realistic if my CON and my skill each increased a little, as I earned my first 10 xp? Instead, my skill ramps up pretty fast - seems unrealistic! And if I said 10 points of languages, rather than 10 points of skill levels, how realistic does it feel that I go from not speaking a word of Spanish to being an idiomatic speaker in the week between adventures? Maybe it's xp itself that is unrealistic and we should just ditch it entirely.

[Sketchpad]

1. Will there ever be a 7th edition of Hero System?

2. If there is, should the system move towards simplification and less complexity, or towards extending the modularity introduced in 6th?

3. Are there any glaring "legacy" mechanics from previous editions crying out for revamping and revision?

4. Should the product be less "generic" and more oriented towards specific settings?

5. Should there be more characteristics? Fewer? About the same number? What about rules for optional stats?

6. Should complications be revamped, or even removed/made optional? Should power limitations and complications be merged, at least in some instances?

7. Should costing be simplified? Should costing for advantages and limitations be made more granular(i.e., +/- 0.1)?

 

 

That's enough for now.

 

While I love the Hero System (particularly Champions), I'd like to see some changes myself.

 

1. I'd like to see one eventually. Does it need to be now? No. Honestly, I think a public playtest akin to what Paizo did with Pathfinder might be the best opening move with such a beast. Not only would it allow folks to have a voice, but it might also bring in new players from the ground up.

 

2. I think Tasha's on to something. There are some overly complex rules in Hero as it stands (which have been talked about throughout this thread and the boards) which could use some streamlining.

 

3. I've never liked the vehicle rules for Hero, nor the wealth rules. I've house ruled the heck out of them for my campaigns by adapting concepts from other games. I don't care for the vehicles as powers route, but there are some ways to make it simpler. I also believe that size templates should be the norm in a game, cutting down the granularity of Growth & Shrinking. Regeneration has been removed from my game entirely, with Healing (Self-Only) replacing it as a mainstay. Equipment has taken on the 1:5 ratio, much like the rules in Dark Champions and those used for vehicles & bases. 

 

4. I can see both sides of this one, but I personally would rather see a loose setting attached with added benefits to emulate a genre. So, theoretically, we might see Champions, Justice Inc., Danger International, Tuala Morn, Terran Empire, etc. Each book would have the Hero System core woven into it, though one that would be catered more to the genre. 

 

5. I don't mind the stats as they stand. The one stat I would make optional, however, is END. This works for some games, but a comic book themed Champions game isn't one of them. Nor is a high action game where the heroes are running across trains or in a fight with several opponents. Nothing is worse than the GM having to cut an epic battle short due to a hero dropping out from exhaustion.

 

6. I know this is taboo, but I like the way Mutants & Masterminds 3e (or Hero Lite as my group's been known to call it) handles Complications. Have a Hunted? When they show up, have a Hero Point (or HAP/Bennie/whatever). The in-game reward is better, IMHO, then having to push players to make up points so they can create the hero they want. It's also through this that GMs can make situational problems for a hero. For example: Mighty Dan has found himself in a desert without his magic belt of power. Having a Susceptibility to sand, the GM hands his player a HAP and activates his weakness, causing him 2d6 damage. While he finally makes it to an oasis with water, Dan disregards any sense of safety and drinks from the pool. Sighing, the GM hands his player another HAP due to the poisonous water and rolls the Drain effect.

 

7. I think converting from a fraction to a decimal system would be easier for some to approach. Alternatively, the whole fraction/decimal bit could be dumped entirely for a real cost modifier. Taking Autofire on your Blast? Autofire now has a +3pts/level modifier. It's still clunky, mind you, but easier to grok.

[Lucius]

 

3. I've never liked the vehicle rules for Hero, nor the wealth rules.

We have wealth rules?

 

Regeneration has been removed from my game entirely, with Healing (Self-Only) replacing it as a mainstay.

Hero has already gone that route and thankfully repented of it.

 

 

6. I know this is taboo, but I like the way Mutants & Masterminds 3e (or Hero Lite as my group's been known to call it) handles Complications. Have a Hunted? When they show up, have a Hero Point (or HAP/Bennie/whatever). The in-game reward is better, IMHO, then having to push players to make up points so they can create the hero they want. It's also through this that GMs can make situational problems for a hero. For example: Mighty Dan has found himself in a desert without his magic belt of power. Having a Susceptibility to sand, the GM hands his player a HAP and activates his weakness, causing him 2d6 damage. While he finally makes it to an oasis with water, Dan disregards any sense of safety and drinks from the pool. Sighing, the GM hands his player another HAP due to the poisonous water and rolls the Drain effect.

I am starting to think we need either something like that system, or a hybrid system including “Negative powers” for some things like Vulnerability and Susceptibility – they have a negative value subtracting directly from the Character's total, which is close to how they already function – and for, say, Hunted and DNPC, something like a “Heroic Action Point” or “Fortune Point” currency could be used. I am a little confused, though, about why drinking poison water earns a point.

 

7. I think converting from a fraction to a decimal system would be easier for some to approach. Alternatively, the whole fraction/decimal bit could be dumped entirely for a real cost modifier. Taking Autofire on your Blast? Autofire now has a +3pts/level modifier. It's still clunky, mind you, but easier to grok.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about, so I'm not sure how it could be “easier to grok.”

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary explains that All that groks is God

[Christopher R Taylor]

One way to build 'negative powers' you can apply to others is through drain: use the same mechanics but let it apply complications and limitations to characters.  For example: give the enemy delayed phase extra time on an attack.

[mhd]

To be honest, apart from serious, often supernatural flaws (e.g. Kryptonite and its ilk), I've mostly been disappointed with the traditional "get character points back" disadvantage systems. Especially when it comes to the "Daddy needs some sweet CP for that HKA" mindset, not something growing out of a concept. Or, heck, the usual "I'm overconfident/curious/slightlybutnotoverwhelminglypacifist". HERO ain't too bad in that regard, being rather generous with the point values and not rewarding people for overindulging on flaws.

 

Surprisingly what I found most interesting where the odd bits of flavor. Like the quirks in GURPS ("likes to wear scarfs") or instincts in Burning Wheel ("always checks rhododendrons for aphids"). Demanding a set number of those from players ekes some role-playing out of even the most staunch backstory-avoiders without being too oppressive.

[NuSoardGraphite]

While I love the Hero System (particularly Champions), I'd like to see some changes myself.

 

1. I'd like to see one eventually. Does it need to be now? No. Honestly, I think a public playtest akin to what Paizo did with Pathfinder might be the best opening move with such a beast. Not only would it allow folks to have a voice, but it might also bring in new players from the ground up.

 

2. I think Tasha's on to something. There are some overly complex rules in Hero as it stands (which have been talked about throughout this thread and the boards) which could use some streamlining.

 

3. I've never liked the vehicle rules for Hero, nor the wealth rules. I've house ruled the heck out of them for my campaigns by adapting concepts from other games. I don't care for the vehicles as powers route, but there are some ways to make it simpler. I also believe that size templates should be the norm in a game, cutting down the granularity of Growth & Shrinking. Regeneration has been removed from my game entirely, with Healing (Self-Only) replacing it as a mainstay. Equipment has taken on the 1:5 ratio, much like the rules in Dark Champions and those used for vehicles & bases. 

 

4. I can see both sides of this one, but I personally would rather see a loose setting attached with added benefits to emulate a genre. So, theoretically, we might see Champions, Justice Inc., Danger International, Tuala Morn, Terran Empire, etc. Each book would have the Hero System core woven into it, though one that would be catered more to the genre. 

 

5. I don't mind the stats as they stand. The one stat I would make optional, however, is END. This works for some games, but a comic book themed Champions game isn't one of them. Nor is a high action game where the heroes are running across trains or in a fight with several opponents. Nothing is worse than the GM having to cut an epic battle short due to a hero dropping out from exhaustion.

 

6. I know this is taboo, but I like the way Mutants & Masterminds 3e (or Hero Lite as my group's been known to call it) handles Complications. Have a Hunted? When they show up, have a Hero Point (or HAP/Bennie/whatever). The in-game reward is better, IMHO, then having to push players to make up points so they can create the hero they want. It's also through this that GMs can make situational problems for a hero. For example: Mighty Dan has found himself in a desert without his magic belt of power. Having a Susceptibility to sand, the GM hands his player a HAP and activates his weakness, causing him 2d6 damage. While he finally makes it to an oasis with water, Dan disregards any sense of safety and drinks from the pool. Sighing, the GM hands his player another HAP due to the poisonous water and rolls the Drain effect.

 

7. I think converting from a fraction to a decimal system would be easier for some to approach. Alternatively, the whole fraction/decimal bit could be dumped entirely for a real cost modifier. Taking Autofire on your Blast? Autofire now has a +3pts/level modifier. It's still clunky, mind you, but easier to grok.

I'm going to have to disagree to #4 partially.  I believe that Hero should always have a generic rulesbook from which any game can be played, but on top of this having game settings released that include rules materials?  I'm kinda neutral on that aspect.  I feel it would probably take away space from potential setting material but it would go pretty far into making each Hero campaign setting playable in the outset without the need of additional expenditures removing a potential barrier to entry.

[IndianaJoe3]

I'm going to have to disagree to #4 partially.  I believe that Hero should always have a generic rulesbook from which any game can be played, but on top of this having game settings released that include rules materials?  I'm kinda neutral on that aspect.  I feel it would probably take away space from potential setting material but it would go pretty far into making each Hero campaign setting playable in the outset without the need of additional expenditures removing a potential barrier to entry.

 

I can see going a few different but complementary ways with this. You could do a core/advanced pairing that has the full rules, but no genre info, genre-complete books with the core rules and optional rules for the genre, and settings books that have genre info but not the core rules.