Departing from the rules: curiosity

[Duke Bushido]

Certainly I've added my opinion or thoughts on a number of discussions on this board since I first returned to ask for some build advice, but it occurs to me that while other people have freely offered their own methods of using or not using X or Y or 7 from the rules, I haven't really offered anything of my own.

 

It's not that I think anyone is right or wrong in what they choose to do or not do; I simply felt it wasn't really right of me to comment on the usage other people get from the rules and not offer something of my own as a reciprocity of candor (and I do mean candor: given how so many places on line are haunted be a membership that has little other entertainment than simply waiting for someone to post... well, anything, really, and then spend the next two months insulting it. It can be daunting to go into a room of anonymous strangers these days and say "this is something I'm proud of." I salute all of you who have done so, and who have put up with whatever I might have done that inadvertently irritated you. (I also apologize whole-heartedly for any of that, too.) )

 

 

So I'm offering this:

 

Something that we've been doing for... well, since the rule book was staple-bound.

 

 

I offer it both because I've seen so many interesting House Rules and so many interesting suggestions for handling odd situations and thought I might put this out, if only to say "thank you" to everyone else for showing me how they do things.

 

 

That, and I really enjoy discussing things. I do this knowing up-front that it is a complete and total violation of RAW from _any_ edition (though in all honesty, we really didn't realize that for a year or two. HA!). I enjoy (and actively solicit!) conversation on just about anything, but please: I already know this isn't "book-legal;" I'm admitting it now. I _am_ rather curious to know if anyone else does or has done something similar.

 

 

So here's what we do that really splits away from the rules:

 

 

We don't let AP guide our Powers builds. Dice totals, things like that: sure; those are important. But not AP. We let the actual cost points determine all the related factors for a particular Power build.

 

 

Just as an example, let's say that we have a character with ---

 

hey, here's a great one: this one is an example in every edition of the rules I've ever read:

 

"Flight: must be touching a surface (-1/2)"

 

So let's give him a total of twenty _real_ points in this Power- 40 AP, I believe.

 

When he uses this Power full out-- all twenty real points worth-- he will pay the END on those twenty points, not on the 40 AP.

 

 

Doing the same with an attack:

 

Let's say a 10D6 Fire Ball with a random -1/2 Limitation.

 

This attack costs 50 AP, 25 real points.

 

When he uses it at 10D6, he will pay END for using 25 points worth of Power.

 

Furthermore, however:

 

The Rules we use state that the Range of -- Blast? Is that the name now? I think it is. If not, then it's whatever used to be Energy Blast. In our groups, we renamed it "Ranged Attack" before there was a 3e just because it was more helpful when teaching new players. At any rate, our rules state that the Range of Blast is five inches for every point in a Power. (5" x pts). No; not quite. The Rules (eventually, if you dig around a bit in the older editions; much more clearly in the newer ones) state that the Range is 5" x AP in Power.

 

We don't do that.

 

 

Now a Player is free to purchase "Range" to offset this if he wants; he's free to leave it alone if he wants.

 

 

 

Now as to the mindset:

 

 

This was originally done-- well, originally we thought this was right-- because of a couple of things that were stated in the rules that we _did_ notice (as opposed to the AP thing, which we really didn't notice for almost two years). First, under the description for -- I believe it was Area of Effect, and it was in at least one more place in the rules-- the comment that Powers with Advantages were not just Power x with Advantage y, but whole new and different Powers and the Advantages were in place to more precisely model that Power. (which, a different conversation, led us to create a "Selectable" Advantage that allowed a Character to use the Power either with or without the Advantage. This decision seems to have been upheld with the introduction of "Variable Advantage," at least partially).

 

The Limitation "Linked" also specified that this Limitation was used particularly to help model an entirely new sort of Power.

 

 

It followed-- to us, at least-- that Limitations were not just important for saving costs when buying a Power, but that they might also be used to precisely tailor a conceived Power. And honestly, we've all seen Swinging redefined as Limited Flight, so it stands to reason. You really _don't_ want your Character to have Flight; you want him to _swing_.

 

Given the inherent insufficiencies of Swinging versus Flight, why would the Character pay the same END, etc, as he would for a... I don't want to say "better" ... Ah-- a "more universally efficient" Power?

 

 

And so on and so forth.

 

 

If a Limited Power is truly a "lesser" version of a Power, which the Player has chosen voluntarily, then why not model it as precisely that? It makes sense that the "weaker" power would take less END. It makes sense that it would have less range.

 

 

I've prattled on too long; forgive me.

 

 

I will leave this now, and await any sort of conversation that may develop.

 

 

Duke

 

 

(oh: like not being "rules legal," I totally get that someone may find this somehow unbalancing or potentially unbalancing. I can say in all honesty that since 1981, it never has been, but that could be unique to us. )

[Hyper-Man]

I don't think anyone should ever worry about the HERO Rules Police raiding their game because of reported RAW violations.

 

With that said I used to get into some quite heated discussions with a former regular here (Phil Flieshman. I'm probably spelling his name wrong).  He not only advocated a very similar approach to yours (which is fine) but made the argument that his interpretation was RAW (not fine as it potentially confuses new players).  I have absolutely no problems with house rules as long as they are acknowledged for what they are.  HERO was designed for campaign level house rules. In fact, it actually needs them since each GM has to choose what level of detail he wants to use for his world.

 

My first experience with Champions was in the early 80's with 1e/2e rules and a GM who honestly didn't care that much about the math.  He was great storyteller so it made up for it.  He created several unintended consequences in his game by making a snap-ruling that characters didn't need to pay slot costs for Multipowers.  That skewed the character builds from the other powergamer-minded players to such a degree that RAW builds were just not viable due to the inevitable power creep that occurred. Regardless, I still have fond memories of that 2 years of almost weekly gaming.  I'm sure my cdo* rules-obsession stems from that early experience.

 

*cdo is like ocd except that the letters are in the correct order.

 

HM

[zslane]

Yeah, whether or not a group plays with the RAW is sort of a minor point really. As long as you're having fun, right? I mean, the toolkit nature of the system encourages you to tinker with it and make it into what you want it to be.

 

Having said that, I think it is instructive to consider the original design rationale behind the RAW. I think knowing that rationale can help better guide modifications so that you know whether or not the logic you apply to your custom rule is at least as sound as that which drove the RAW.

 

As mentioned, Advantages don't just make a power more expensive, they fundamentally alter the power in such a way as to make it an entirely new power. So, you can think of an Energy Blast as costing 5 pts per DC, and an Armor Piercing Energy Blast as costing 7.5 pts per DC. Forget for a moment that the latter can be derived from the former by the application of something called a Power Advantage. If you think of them strictly as separate powers written up with their own sections in the rulebook, you wouldn't ignore the cost difference when determining END costs (or even campaign limits on the "magnitude" of purchased powers). Consequently, it doesn't particularly make sense to make the END cost the same between them when you express them as Power + Power Advantage.

 

Limitations are tricky in that concept ought to ultimately decide whether or not they reduce the "effort" required to use a power. But in general, Limitations will alter the availability or applicability of a power, but not the energy output (and hence the END cost) when it does fire off.

 

I think it is entirely up to the GM whether or not he wants to place Real Cost or Active Cost limits on his campaign. The rationale behind having Active Cost limits comes down mostly to the calculus of attacks versus defenses and little else. You will find your players in an arms race with your villains when they learn that the 30 points they spent in defenses isn't helping against the 30 points the arch-villain's agents have in a power with 4x the DCs but with enough Limitations to make it only fire off once in a combat.

 

I generally have no problem with diverging from the RAW, so long as doing so happens with the same degree of design insight that went into the RAW.

[Lord Liaden]

At this point I also think it's worth asking, "Which version of the RAW are we talking about?" Sixth Edition HERO? Fifth? Fourth? 3E or earlier Champions? Any of the standalone genre games? For 6E, the full two-volume rules, or the Complete versions? While I accept that each edition has been to some extent a refinement of the previous rule set, to no small degree they reflect the subjectivity of their writers as to what constitutes "better" rules.

 

I and my group have always felt free to mix and match elements from any edition of HERO that we find appealing, to get the play experience we like. That could be considered "house ruling," although we do use a very few rules which have never appeared in an official publication (AFAIK). But at least since Steve Long took over the franchise, the rule books have encouraged GMs and players to change the RAW for our games however makes it more fun for us.

[zslane]

Most of my experience is with 1st through 4th editions, back when the original designers were still involved to one extent or another in the game's development. I guess I found their vision for the game to more closely align with my own design proclivities, which is why I generally prefer 4e over anything that has followed. Tinkering with the RAW was something that felt very natural and intuitive back then, and now I don't feel nearly the same degree of confidence when tinkering with 6e. So much now is prescribed in the RAW that it is much harder to know when you are re-inventing a wheel (and potentially doing a worse job of it). At least that's how it feels to me.

[Duke Bushido]

I don't think anyone should ever worry about the HERO Rules Police raiding their game because of reported RAW violations.

You're right, of course.

 

And I do wish to apologize to anyone who thought I was being preemptively sensitive. That was not my intention; I promise. I meant only to make it clear that I was already aware of that and was simply offering this up as fodder for discussion-- you know: save someone the trouble of typing out something to draw my attention to my "mistake," as it were. That's all.

 

 

I'd also like to comment that I have been pleasantly surprised by the change in tone of the board in general during my decade away. There was a time when such as "I already know this is wrong" statement would have saved several dozen opportunities for carpal tunnel. Im my wandering about the board since my return, this simply doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

 

 

With that said I used to get into some quite heated discussions with a former regular here (Phil Flieshman.

Phil isn't about anymore? That's a shame. Unless he changed considerably after I left, he always came off as knowledgeable and even on the rare occasions that he couldn't be directly helpful he was usually open to discussion on something.

 

 

I'm probably spelling his name wrong).  He not only advocated a very similar approach to yours (which is fine) but made the argument that his interpretation was RAW

I can see where he was coming from. I honestly admitted that for roughly two years, we thought that ourselves. It wasn't until we decided to use the Champions rules for a genre other that Supers (I am also going to honestly admit that I prefer Science Fiction to Supers. I don't _dislike_ supers, and it was (and, thinking about it, still is) was most of my friends prefer, so i have played a _lot_ of it . But the group was willing to humor me, but they didn't really want to learn new rules (my Traveller Book (remember the Blue Book?) scared them a bit, I think), so I suggested that given the nature of the Champions rules (it was 2e, and there just wasn't any thought of a "HERO System" yet), it should lend itself nicely. It was a scrupulous re-reading of the rules by the entire group that led to the discovery we'd been playing it wrong. By that point, though, we'd had _plenty_ of play testing of our "mistaken" method, so there was no serious impetus to change to the correct rules.

 

After close scrutiny and some experimental (i.e., "scratch papering" ) re-workings of a couple of characters and NPCs that we came to realize that doing it completely "by the book," particularly with Limitations, closed the variety scale quite a bit on Powers. Intentionally "lesser" version of certain Powers suddenly didn't feel "limited" at all. Sure: they might not work when the sun had set, but while the did work, they were fundamentally identical in every way to the "real" version of Power. So we just kept on doing it as we did (there's a hilarious story about a similar mistake with "Damage Reduction" when our GM bought the supplement that introduced it, but that's probably for later in the conversation, or maybe even another conversation all together .

 

I have absolutely no problems with house rules as long as they are acknowledged for what they are.  HERO was designed for campaign level house rules. In fact, it actually needs them since each GM has to choose what level of detail he wants to use for his world.

I agree completely. I would go so far as to say that this really applies to _any_ game, in any genre. Even simply setting limits such as types of Characters, or what abilities may be "off limits" or that every Character "should be able to X" are common concepts to the most die-hard THACO enthusiast.

 

 

 

*cdo is like ocd except that the letters are in the correct order.

As they should be!

 

 

Having said that, I think it is instructive to consider the original design rationale behind the RAW.

Indeed! While it hasn't really come up too terribly often, I can think of may times spent (after a game, of course; all my early GMs taught me the value of making an "educated guess" and standing by it during game play, if only not to bog the game down. The caveat, of course, is that this only worked if everyone agreed this ruling was for this session only and may be handled differently later on pending a rules check) not finding a satisfactory answer in the rules but trying to analyze the wording and intent from as many similar or exact opposite items we could find in the rules. Oddly, -- well, perhaps _not_ so oddly, given to how I feel about the necessity of discussion and the importance of actually _trying_ to find the validity in opposing viewpoints-- at any rate, I have enjoyed many of those session almost as much as playing the game.

 

In fact, I think the recent conversation on Duplication and points-lost builds in general hearkened back to some those deductions from way back when.

[Duke Bushido]

[continued]

 

 

However:

 

I think knowing that rationale

 

This is much harder than one might imagine. The early editions were... well, I don't want this to sound like a negative, as it was pretty much the rule for all games back then, but the early editions were "rules light," leaving little to draw on. I don't mind this; it's what most of us cut our teeth on, after all. With the nature of what has become "the HERO system," I actually find it's helpful more than problematic. But on those occasions when it _is_ a problem, it's a conundrum indeed. 4e really cleared up a lot of things, but still, things were open to interpretation. For example, Adjustment Powers. There still wasn't really a "cap" on how much adjustment could be made.

 

 

Now in all sincerity, I preferred it that way. Moreover, I found it was "more right-feeling" with the mechanics already established: each edition of the rules goes to great lengths to explain that Players are free to Advantage or Limit their Powers to suit their conception of the Character. We've had several Players voluntarily take Limitations to express the fact that their Character had a Limit to how much he could Drain or Absorb. Everything was groovy. A couple decades later and more rules came that flat-out gave everyone a limit, period.

 

Understand that I'm not trying to make this about Adjustment Powers or about changing rules; this was simply a handy example.

 

The essential problem with trying to figure out the theory or philosophy behind the rules is extremely difficult when

 

1) that rationale isn't discussed to any extent in the earliest rules.

2) the designers of those rules aren't involved like they once where.

3) the current designer of the rules specifically declines to have such a discussion (not that there's anything wrong with that; I can think of a couple hundred reasons why, given the nature of the internet and instant communication between any two relative strangers on the simplest of whims-- There's a nightmare I wouldn't want any part of, either.

 

And of course, omissions. This goes right back to trying to prove a negative: simply because the designers of this rule set or of that rule set did _not_ include a specific reference to a specific potential question doesn't mean that they forgot to do it or that they hadn't considered it. If I may revisit the Adjustment Powers example, not stating a maximum points level for Adjustment doesn't mean that they forgot to do so. It can be assumed with every bit as much validity that they simply didn't want such a limit; that this was being left up to the Player to decide for himself via Limitations or no Limitations. We'll never know.

 

The new rules are more complex and thorough than ever, but the fact that a "rules questions" section of this forum allows one to ask the current designer to directly clarify questions suggests that should the rules grow to one day be the size of the extinct encyclopedia, there will be things that they do not address. Is the question then "can we have some more rules" or is it "how do we best handle this, going on what we already have?"

 

 

As mentioned, Advantages don't just make a power more expensive, they fundamentally alter the power in such a way as to make it an entirely new power.

Precisely. And it was this logic, which we did have spelled out in the rules, that lead us to assume that Limitations must, in the reverse fashion, model a weaker (for lack of a better term) version of the Power: an Energy Blast that was only worth 3 or 4 pts per die.

 

Limitations are tricky in that concept ought to ultimately decide whether or not they reduce the "effort" required to use a power. But in general, Limitations will alter the availability or applicability of a power, but not the energy output (and hence the END cost) when it does fire off.

 

 

 

 

 Correct again. To that end, there are certain Limitations that do _not_ provide breaks to END cost, and often are not considered to reduce Range (thought this does not prevent the Player from doing so voluntarily, or even taking the "Reduced Range" Limitation separately). These are usually what we call "condition X" Limitations: doesn't work under Condition X, or only works under Condition X--" that sort of thing.

 

 

I think it is entirely up to the GM whether or not he wants to place Real Cost or Active Cost limits on his campaign. The rationale behind having Active Cost limits comes down mostly to the calculus of attacks versus defenses and little else. You will find your players in an arms race with your villains when they learn that the 30 points they spent in defenses isn't helping against the 30 points the arch-villain's agents have in a power with 4x the DCs but with enough Limitations to make it only fire off once in a combat.

 

 

 

 

 

I totally understand where you're coming from (I believe), but that's going to happen even with one-hundred-percent RAW in force, all the time. My 30 points of Armor might be completely useless against your 30 points of AVALD (or whatever they're calling it in the newest books) or Mind Control or even Flash (assuming 30 pts of Flash still buys something useful. Given what happened to ShapeShift and the new enhanced senses rules, I don't know if thirty points of Flash is enough currently to take a photograph with).

 

 

 

 

I generally have no problem with diverging from the RAW, so long as doing so happens with the same degree of design insight that went into the RAW.

 

 

 

At this point I also think it's worth asking, "Which version of the RAW are we talking about?"

This is a _wonderful_ point. I don't mean that just because I play an amalgam of stuff based primarily on 2e, either. There still seems to be an overwhelming number of people who are enjoying 4e, and from what I can tell, 5e (though I'm not sure which) seems to currently see more use than 6e, but I'm going to put that down not to dislike, but daunting size of the rules themselves. Or perhaps availability of printed versions.

 

While I accept that each edition has been to some extent a refinement of the previous rule set, to no small degree they reflect the subjectivity of their writers as to what constitutes "better" rules.

 

True. The only difference between "house rules" and "book rules" are whether or not you have the right to make your house rules the official rules. But honestly, I'm not trying to knock the pre-packaged rules. As I noted earlier in this post, I really believe _everyone_, from every game system, has some sort of house rules in play to enhance their own experience with the game.

 

 

 

although we do use a very few rules which have never appeared in an official publication (AFAIK).

Sweet! Care to share one or two?

 

(not trying to make a dare out of this; it's simply the topic of the thread. If you've got something you're willing to share, I'd love to read it.

 

 

 

Duke

Duke (trying to get a bunch of unneeded "End Quote" commands to go away)

[Lord Liaden]

Sweet! Care to share one or two?

 

(not trying to make a dare out of this; it's simply the topic of the thread. If you've got something you're willing to share, I'd love to read it.

 

 

I think I have time for that.

 

One complaint I've often heard from Champions players is that it's hard to make their superhumans immune to massed fire from conventional weapons, like a lot of comic-book supers appear to be, without investing a lot of points in Defenses. For people who have an issue with that, it's become exacerbated as the power level of published versions of real weapons has gone up in more recent editions of Hero.

 

I noticed that the real-world weapons already built in the equipment lists all have the Real Weapon Limitation; while various types of body armor are all built with the opposite-number Lim, Real Armor. I instituted a rule that weapons with Real Weapon do only half their normal damage (STUN, BODY, and Knockdown/Knockback) against applicable Defenses without Real Armor; while Defenses with Real Armor use only half their value to resist attacks without Real Weapon. I found that immediately made the feel of super combat against normal weapons more like what you see in four-color comics; and also justified all those high-tech blasters and force-field belts used by organizations like VIPER, which don't have those Limitations, so are more effective against supers.

 

Another common complaint is that it's difficult in Hero to instantly kill someone, even with a very large attack or environmental condition which "logically" should do so; at least not without using Hit Locations, which add complexity and don't suit every campaign. My players like dealing with the risk of instant death; so I came up with the rule that if a character takes total BODY damage, after subtracting Defenses, which is equal to or greater than his or her starting BODY, from a single attack, the character can die immediately.

 

I usually have them die automatically in Heroic games, but may apply Hit Locations to modify the damage the character actually takes. In Superheroic games I don't typically use Hit Locations, but do allow characters to make a CON Characteristic Roll to avoid instant death, modified by number of BODY over their starting total. Since PC heroes usually have higher CON, BODY, and DEF totals than normal people, in practice normals buy the farm far more often than heroes (which suits most action-adventure genres).

[Christopher]

Having said that, I think it is instructive to consider the original design rationale behind the RAW. I think knowing that rationale can help better guide modifications so that you know whether or not the logic you apply to your custom rule is at least as sound as that which drove the RAW.

I watch a lot of extra Credits and with the Episodes about "Future Proofing your design" I noticed:

The 6E rulesbooks do just that.

The Hero Philosophy Chapter is literally the "list of best practices"/"things for other designers to consider". With the other designers being implicitly the groups using the game system.

With the Hero System, we are game designers with all that entails:

 

Most other Rulesystems work via explicit orders. With teh result that something like the Shadowrun Improoved Armor (wich Spirits, a major gameplay element) has 3 different interpretations.

 

We don't let AP guide our Powers builds. Dice totals, things like that: sure; those are important. But not AP. We let the actual cost points determine all the related factors for a particular Power build.

 

[...]

 

"Flight: must be touching a surface (-1/2)"

 

So let's give him a total of twenty _real_ points in this Power- 40 AP, I believe.

 

When he uses this Power full out-- all twenty real points worth-- he will pay the END on those twenty points, not on the 40 AP.

 

 

Doing the same with an attack:

 

Let's say a 10D6 Fire Ball with a random -1/2 Limitation.

 

This attack costs 50 AP, 25 real points.

 

When he uses it at 10D6, he will pay END for using 25 points worth of Power.

 

Furthermore, however:

 

The Rules we use state that the Range of -- Blast? Is that the name now? I think it is. If not, then it's whatever used to be Energy Blast. In our groups, we renamed it "Ranged Attack" before there was a 3e just because it was more helpful when teaching new players. At any rate, our rules state that the Range of Blast is five inches for every point in a Power. (5" x pts). No; not quite. The Rules (eventually, if you dig around a bit in the older editions; much more clearly in the newer ones) state that the Range is 5" x AP in Power.

 

We don't do that.

 

 

Now a Player is free to purchase "Range" to offset this if he wants; he's free to leave it alone if he wants.

As said, this was a valid change of the rules.

And these are the design ramifications I see comming from the:

The Range change should have no real effect. I mean how often does a Range of 600m actually mater in a Superheroic game. Who would want to play on a map big enough for that? So that change is propably neutral to improoving the game.

 

With the Endurance cost based on RC rather then AP, effectively you lowered the baseline Endurance cost. Wich also means fewer points need to be spend on END and REC.

Since the Real Points define stuff like Endurance Cost, you also incentivised taking Limitations on powers. Wich also means the real cost curve of powers would have been lower in your games.

 

Both would indirectly lead to less expenses for powers. Wich in turn could lead results like this:

- the excess points must be bleed off somehow. Maybe the CV's increase. Maybe the SPD. Maybe less use of "what not to spend points on"? More Character taxes?

- having more effective points to spend on powers means characters might have been more diversified. I often felt like the 400 points with 400 point caps are too stingy a budget. I thought about using 500 point with 400 point caps, just to a get a bit more diversified Characters.

- stronger focus on skill or attribute based builds

 

It is those subtle, unpredictable effects I am usually most worried about. They sneak up on you and backstab you, when did not even knew you had to make a Spot Check. And worst as with Powercreep discussions, you might be looking at the wrong part as cause.

[Duke Bushido]

I think I have time for that.

Thank you for taking a few minutes. It's appreciated.

 

 

 

it's become exacerbated as the power level of published versions of real weapons has gone up in more recent editions of Hero.

It has indeed. I don't know if we've got more specimens to sample gunshot damage from, or if this is some of that "power creep" that gets mentioned from time to time, but yes: "real" guns seem to be much more... effective? Than they used to be. And given that -- I forget which edition, but being as how we started with "normies are straight 10s on their stats" and then degraded them to "normies are straight 8s on their stats," it seems clear that there have been some really impressive technological strides in the art of killing people with lead.

 

 

I instituted a rule that weapons with Real Weapon do only half their normal damage (STUN, BODY, and Knockdown/Knockback) against applicable Defenses without Real Armor; while Defenses with Real Armor use only half their value to resist attacks without Real Weapon.

I _LOVE_ this! Not just for the more accurate simulation, and not just because you've found a handy way to create an "almost absolute" -- or, more accurately, a distinct threshold between Supers and Normies-- but because it was such a simple tactic that both solved your groups problem _and_ created yet another layer of granularity (albeit it a bit more "meta" than individual DCs or the like, but it's still granularity of a sort), and it's absolutely wonderful!

 

If I wore hats, mine would be off to you, Sir. I'd offer to take my hair off to you, but I don't wear that, either. And honestly, taking the beard off is far too painful. Still, though, worthless though they may be, I flood you with personal commendations. I really, really, _really_ like this, and I can't thank you enough for sharing it.

 

 

Another common complaint is that it's difficult in Hero to instantly kill someone, even with a very large attack or environmental condition which "logically" should do so; at least not without using Hit Locations, which add complexity and don't suit every campaign. My players like dealing with the risk of instant death; so I came up with the rule that if a character takes total BODY damage, after subtracting Defenses, which is equal to or greater than his or her starting BODY, from a single attack, the character can die immediately.

 

I usually have them die automatically in Heroic games, but may apply Hit Locations to modify the damage the character actually takes. In Superheroic games I don't typically use Hit Locations, but do allow characters to make a CON Characteristic Roll to avoid instant death, modified by number of BODY over their starting total. Since PC heroes usually have higher CON, BODY, and DEF totals than normal people, in practice normals buy the farm far more often than heroes (which suits most action-adventure genres).

 

This is a great idea. Honestly, I think I prefer it to ours, if only because there's less "vague" floating about yours. We, too, have found mooks to be a bit harder to take down than they should be, so we juggle the results a bit: mooks that are meant to be really easy to drop only get half their CON against Stun (if Stunning is the goal) or take double BODY before Defenses (if Killing is the goal). These Mooks always die at 0 BODY. Mooks that are meant to be tougher than those first mooks (sort of "second-tier" mooks) take double BODY (afte Defenses). These Mooks also die at 0 BODY. Third-tier mooks get their full CON against stunning and take double BODY after defenses. The also have "dramatic BODY:" They die at 0 (they're goons, after all, and are meant to be serious but not terribly difficult threats), but they may not die if it's more appropriate for them not to.

 

 

Remember though, that this is just mooks.

 

I rather like your ideas; they're more universal and less "fudgey."

 

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

 

 

 

these are the design ramifications I see comming from the:

The Range change should have no real effect. I mean how often does a Range of 600m actually mater in a Superheroic game. Who would want to play on a map big enough for that? So that change is propably neutral to improoving the game.

It actually _does_ improve the game, and it does so in a couple of ways:

 

First and foremost: Range is _hugely_ overlooked problem. If I may borrow your example, a 600m "Solar Flare Attack" with AoE: Cone should _always_ matter, trebly so when you _miss_. There is absolutely no reason why all super-powered battles can't be in remote or isolated or otherwise reasonably secure locations with no chance to damage property or (worse) innocent bystanders. But by and large, when such things do occur in our supers games, it's nice to know I don't have to look as far into the crowd or as deep into the map to figure out what (or who) the Character may have reasonably just incinerated.

 

Secondly, it has let us more accurately model the source material: not all superhero stories feature characters who's range attacks or entangles or teleports or what-have-you are functionally identical. Something as simple as this change helps further differentiate the Characters's Powers from one another. It's no longer just "lip service to SFX;" there are now serious game-mechanic differences.

 

And finally-- and I admit most importantly to me (emphasis on "to me," as I can't speak for the importance of this part to everyone else), it's something else Players have access to when they wish to create one specific thing. Sure, they could add on more Limitations: Reduced Range" and add "Reduced END" and on and on, but this gives a nice well-rounded... Well, I hate to say "complete" when we're tying to model something that's intentionally inferior or incomplete, but it's just a nice all-around reduction in Power level. If, of course, that's what the Player is looking for.

 

 

With the Endurance cost based on RC rather then AP, effectively you lowered the baseline Endurance cost. Wich also means fewer points need to be spend on END and REC.

Quite correct. Considering that we're still using 2e ( END = pts/5; Reduced Endurance means 1/2 of what it was. Reduced Endurance twice means 1/4, three times means 1/8, etc), I have yet to have any real complaints on that.

 

It also had the same "upside" that deciding buying RED END twice meant Zero END has: No more low-level characters with low-end Characteristics and 80 pips of END, either. That, and it's really hard to justify that a power that is, well, "less" of a Power is just as strenuous to use in all cases, period. If the Player wants his particular case to be just that, then he is free to buy Increased END on his Power as well (which, as funny as it would be, doesn't lower END cost )

 

Since the Real Points define stuff like Endurance Cost, you also incentivised taking Limitations on powers. Wich also means the real cost curve of powers would have been lower in your games.

Yes. Though most of my players have never really needed an incentive to restrict their Powers. Neither have I, really. If I have a concept, I try to stick very closely to it, even if that means Limiting the Power. My players tend to be the same in that regard. I'm probably the worst about itsimply because I'm the guy who makes the NPCs, and I want them all to feel as unique as possible. Though to be honest with you, I've never really thought about the "incentivizing" aspect. Limitations as presented in the rules are incentive enough: save points. All I've really done is add "and some END, but at the cost of range and maybe a couple other minor things, depending on the Power."

 

Good point, though; thank you for calling attention to it.

 

 

 

Both would indirectly lead to less expenses for powers. Wich in turn could lead results like this:

- the excess points must be bleed off somehow. Maybe the CV's increase. Maybe the SPD. Maybe less use of "what not to spend points on"? More Character taxes?

- having more effective points to spend on powers means characters might have been more diversified. I often felt like the 400 points with 400 point caps are too stingy a budget. I thought about using 500 point with 400 point caps, just to a get a bit more diversified Characters.

- stronger focus on skill or attribute based builds

Well less expensive powers happens wether I ding the range and "feel of effectiveness" of the power anyway. It is the single thing that the rules already promise you in exchange for the limitation: this is something you can do to make your Power cost less." (or, you know-- words to that effect. )

 

As to Character costs, I was surprised with 4e raised the suggested starting to 300; then 5e went to -- what was it? 400? 450? Honestly, I thought maybe those extra two hundred points were in case you wanted to build a Shape Shifter or someone with really good senses. (I kid; I kid! ).

 

We're still using 2e as our basis here, too: we still start out with 100 pts plus up to 150 in disadvantages. That's it. And we're having lots of fun doing it.

 

 

It is those subtle, unpredictable effects I am usually most worried about. They sneak up on you and backstab you, when did not even knew you had to make a Spot Check. And worst as with Powercreep discussions, you might be looking at the wrong part as cause.

 

"Power Creep" doesn't require any sort of House Rule. It works quite fine under _any_ set of published rules. All it requires is a GM that allows you to violate his campaign limits. Then he does it again. Then he does it again. Power Creep comes from only two possible sources:

 

One or more Players who have a competitive _need_ to have an edge of sorts over the other Players.

 

Advancement. We give experience _specifically_ so the Player can grow the Character. If the Player and the GM are doing their jobs, then the Characters _are_ becoming more powerful, and hopefully more experienced, and most importantly, everyone is having a great time making it happen.

 

 

But it's possible under _any_ rule set. Once upon a time, our rules started with 250pt Characters. Now they're double that, and some folks don't think that's enough. That's Power Creep in and of itself, I believe.

 

 

 

Thank you, Christopher, for taking the time to join the conversation! It's always a pleasure.

 

 

 

Duke

[Cantriped]

*Wee ooh Wee ooh Wee ooh*

"This is the HERO Rules Police! Immediately cease toolkitting the Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit. If you do not comply, we will be forced to bludgeon you to death with this Flail constructed from this collection of 6th edition rulebooks we belted together (its a 12d6 HtH Attack)"

So I'm offering this:

...

Just as an example, let's say that we have a character with ---

hey, here's a great one: this one is an example in every edition of the rules I've ever read:

"Flight: must be touching a surface (-1/2)"

So let's give him a total of twenty _real_ points in this Power- 40 AP, I believe.

When he uses this Power full out-- all twenty real points worth-- he will pay the END on those twenty points, not on the 40 AP.


Doing the same with an attack:

Let's say a 10D6 Fire Ball with a random -1/2 Limitation.

This attack costs 50 AP, 25 real points.

When he uses it at 10D6, he will pay END for using 25 points worth of Power.

...

Seriously though... a minor note irrelevant to the concept itself:

Your math is off a little. 20 RP of Flight with a -1/2 limitation would be 30m Flight, or 15" pre-6th, or 30 APs (not 40).

Likewise Fireball:  10d6 Blast (50 APs); Random Limitation (-1/2). Cost 33 points. 

To get Real Point result equal to half of the power's Active Points, you need a -1 limitation.

 

Okay, nit picking aside... I think that idea is actually pretty cool as far as toolkitting HERO goes. I can see lots of reasons why I personally wouldn't do it that way, but that is neither here nor there. I can also see how that kind of consistency would make explaining the rules much simpler, how it would make limitations feel much more important, and how the rules could fairly easily have been balanced around that as the core mechanic.

 

Personally I run HERO almost entirely "by the book" (the book in this case being Champions Complete and/or Fantasy HERO Complete). My biggest personal house-rule regards speaking in combat, which I've already described in detail over here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94238-help-me-create-some-alternate-rules-for-streamlining-hero/

The short version is that I "time" combat speech to prevent players from holding strategy meeting mid-punch.

 

I also just want to say that it takes a lot of guts to stick your neck out there on the internet and post a question or opinion, and I respect that. I frequently post to this forum, but I never start threads (for any number of largely selfish or arrogant reasons). I'm also frequently reminded of how much better the HERO forum community is compared to (for example) the toxic community that surrounds the Paizo Forums (the company which publishes pathfinder). I posted a thread there a few months back and literally spent two days getting my head bitten off by everyone until a moderator finally locked the thread.

[Duke Bushido]

*Wee ooh Wee ooh Wee ooh*

"This is the HERO Rules Police! Immediately cease toolkitting the Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit. If you do not comply, we will be forced to bludgeon you to death with this Flail constructed from this collection of 6th edition rulebooks we belted together (its a 12d6 HtH Attack)"

HA!

 

Okay; all right! I get it! :D

 

This place isn't as aggressive as it used to be, and even then it wasn't as bad as most places are now.

 

 

Seriously though-- that was funny. Thumbs up!

 

Seriously though... a minor note irrelevant to the concept itself:

Your math is off a little. 20 RP of Flight with a -1/2 limitation would be 30m Flight, or 15" pre-6th, or 30 APs (not 40).

Likewise Fireball:  10d6 Blast (50 APs); Random Limitation (-1/2). Cost 33 points. 

Ah; so it is. Thank you. I made the mistake honest, so I won't be sneaking back to edit it.

 

I will, however, emphasis your corrections for anyone who might come along, just to note that it has been corrected.

 

Thanks again.

 

If I may offer a brief defense of my mistake (which was honest; it's not indicative of another house rule or anything. ). I've been living on nothing but orange juice and powdered nutrition for just over a week. Well, that and pain medications that I was assured _should_ make a horse groggy. Evidently I have the wrong pills, because there are no foggy horses around here and the pain is sill like an ice cube deep inside of each tooth. I'm awaiting surgery on my upper jaw Monday morning. All I have to do is live until Monday. However, it's not making _wanting_ to live until Monday any easier; I assure you. (it's also why I've been up and online for so many hours: I can't sleep, and if I don't focus on something, the discomfort tends to grab my attention for some reason.) I hadn't even realized my mistake until you pointed it out. Thanks again for that.

 

 

 

Okay, nit picking aside... I think that idea is actually pretty cool as far as toolkitting HERO goes.

Well thank you again, Sir. (I assume. It's so hard to tell with Elves and Dwarves. HA!) I would like to take some credit for it, but as I freely admitted, it grew from a mistake we made back in '81, and by the time we realized our mistake, we found we liked our method better, simply because:

 

it would make limitations feel much more important,

That right there. It _does_ add to the importance of the Limitations themselves, not just mechanic-wise, but story-wise as well: It's hard to do that "if I can keep him talking, keep him distracted until Warmouth gets just a little bit closer...." kind of thing when everyone can target anyone from essentially the exact same distance. And Pushing-- Pushing becomes more relied upon, more critical at the best moments... Well, there are lots of things, story-wise, but I suppose you summed it up best: the Limitations become-- well, the become more important to the story and to the strategy. Most of all, they feel "limiting" in ways that many of them don't really convey when in-game effects are based on AP. And of course, we've touched on the unintentional "upside" of not having to worry about people a mile-and-a-half down the road catching a stray laser beam to the spleen.

 

 

Personally I run HERO almost entirely "by the book" (the book in this case being Champions Complete and/or Fantasy HERO Complete).

 

And there is no shame in that. Myself, I'm hoping to score a copy of Champions Complete, but the surgery is ... well, it's expected to make some sort of impact on my finances for the for the foreseeable future.

 

 

My biggest personal house-rule regards speaking in combat, which I've already described in detail over here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/94238-help-me-create-some-alternate-rules-for-streamlining-hero/

The short version is that I "time" combat speech to prevent players from holding strategy meeting mid-punch.

Clever idea. I'll check out the link after I get this posted. Thanks!

 

 

 

I also just want to say that it takes a lot of guts to stick your neck out there on the internet and post a question or opinion, and I respect that. I frequently post to this forum, but I never start threads (for any number of largely selfish or arrogant reasons).

Well thank you, but I'm not particular courageous. I have twelve siblings: by the time I got to junior high, I didn't have any feelings _left_! I'm difficult to perturb, and when it comes to ignoring people screaming and yelling, I'm an absolute viking.

 

But you know, it really shouldn't be like that. If I may _briefly_ go off on a tangent, I put some of the blame for that on the way society has these past few years made any sort of expression of anger or disagreement a cardinal sin. People are still human, and they have to vent something. The semi-anonymous nature of the internet makes it a quite attractive place to be an absolute ass without fear of genuine retaliation. It's sad. So much to be learned from one another, and we'd rather shove crayons up our noses and eat paste.

 

I'm also frequently reminded of how much better the HERO forum community is

As I have been throughout this thread.

 

Good on all of you!

 

 

compared to (for example) the toxic community that surrounds the Paizo Forums (the company which publishes pathfinder). I posted a thread there a few months back and literally spent two days getting my head bitten off by everyone until a moderator finally locked the thread.

I was going to let this piece go, but as a moderator on my own board for a distinctly unrelated hobby, I would offer you the suggestion of mentioning to your moderators that locking threads is not enough. I'm not big on banning, as anyone can have an off day, but deleting such threads has proven to be a much better method for me: leaving a locked thread up still gives plenty of "examples" to would-be knuckleheads that 1) such behavior _is_ tolerated, to a point, and 2) just how far they go with this sort of behavior before they need fear any sort of reprimand.

 

Just my two cents on that.

 

 

Thanks for joining in!

 

Duke

[Duke Bushido]

Oh; I forgot earlier:

 

Christopher:

 

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "Character Taxes?"

 

Thank you.

 

Duke

[Christopher]

Oh; I forgot earlier:

 

Christopher:

 

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "Character Taxes?"

 

Thank you.

 

Duke

Let's asume you have a 250 Point game. But everyone is required to spend 5 points on "Justice League Style Communicator". The 5 Points are a Character Tax. They do not really aid you at all. Indeed that device should just fall under the "what not to Spend points on" rule.

 

Most often I saw it used in the context of "excessive DEX/SPD/CV values in superheroics".

Superheroic values in DEX, SPD and CV are often very high. In 5E and earlier, they were mostly one Statistic (DEX) to begin with.

Even the "slow brick" needs to spend a few points "just to be competitive/properly build". They kind of give something if they fight normals. But most of the time they are just there "because the value should look high".

In a 400 point, 5-7 SPD game even the slow brick has to spend 30 Points on buying up SPD to at least 5. And just so the character is not a total drag on the team/get's to act regulary. Those 30 points are not really "for use as you see fit". You could have just as well started at 5 SPD and reduced points to 370.

[Cantriped]

Now that I am more awake (more is a relative word, I'm still pre-coffee Cantriped)... There are two other house-rules I run in my HERO games. The first is so minor it rarely ever comes up.

 

First House-Rule:

Speed 1: Character's with SPD 1 have their only phase on segment 12, just like everyone else (by RAW in CC/FHC they go on segment 7).

Combat usually starts on segment 12, and the meta-rule of the system everyone is supposed to get at least one phase at the start of combat so that slower combatants don't get knocked out by faster ones before they've acted at least once. Except by RAW everyone gets at least 2 full phases, and superheroes can easily get 3 or 4 full phases, all before SPD 1 gets their first full phase. It wasn't even remotely fair to my giant lumbering SPD 1 super-monster; so I changed it. Personally I think the Speed Chart looks so much nicer with little HERO Hexmen all the way down the Segment 12 column.

 

Second House-Rule:

I don't use the Beam (-1/4) modifier. I am of the opinion it takes away too much for its -1/4 value. Instead I split it into multiple -1/4 limitations (which I admit is going a little overboard but I feel like it is as close as I'm gonna get without 1/8th modifiers being a thing):

Does Not Leave Holes (-1/4) - Nearly all mundane weapons, and any number of powers/spell take this modifier to prevent them from being used to blow open walls.

Cannot Be Reduced (-1/4) - Nearly all mundane weapons take this modifier in my campaigns, but especially projectile weapons.

Cannot Be Spread (-1/4) - in CCFHC this is already basically a separate modifier unto itself in the form of Cannot Be Used With [specific Maneuver], except that spreading is a modifier and not technically covered by it.

The main reason I split Beam is because I frequently want to design powers that suffer from one or two of the elements Beam restricts, but almost never all three. Furthermore the prerequisites on Beam (Non-Area Ranged Attacks) prevented me from using it on many power constructs I thought should suffer some, but not all of the limitations of Beam.

[Cantriped]

Let's asume you have a 250 Point game. But everyone is required to spend 5 points on "Justice League Style Communicator". The 5 Points are a Character Tax. They do not really aid you at all. Indeed that device should just fall under the "what not to Spend points on" rule.

 

In my last Champions campaign I built a 20-point Smartphone, and made it everyman equipment. It could do pretty much everything a modern smartphone can.

 

In order to keep Superheroic statistics from feeling like a character tax, the PCs in that campaign fairly frequently fought against large groups of minions that only had 2 or 3 SPD. I also discouraged SPD over 4 unless you are actually a speedster, and even then I discouraged SPD over 6 (I didn't prohibit it mind you, just discouraged)

[Hugh Neilson]

First House-Rule:

Speed 1: Character's with SPD 1 have their only phase on segment 12, just like everyone else (by RAW in CC/FHC they go on segment 7).

Combat usually starts on segment 12, and the meta-rule of the system everyone is supposed to get at least one phase at the start of combat so that slower combatants don't get knocked out by faster ones before they've acted at least once. Except by RAW everyone gets at least 2 full phases, and superheroes can easily get 3 or 4 full phases, all before SPD 1 gets their first full phase. It wasn't even remotely fair to my giant lumbering SPD 1 super-monster; so I changed it. Personally I think the Speed Chart looks so much nicer with little HERO Hexmen all the way down the Segment 12 column.

I think "SPD 1 moves on Ph 7" started before "we start combat on Phase 12".

 

Is it unreasonable that people with SPD higher than 1 have a speed advantage over the lumbering SPD 1 brute? It only matters at the very start, of course. In between actions of the SPD 1 Brute, everyone else will get a number of actions equal to their SPD.

 

To answer my own question, when SPD 2 and SPD 8 each get one action on Ph 12 at the start of combat, I think it is reasonable SPD 1 does as well, so moving that action to Segment 12 makes sense to me.

 

Second House-Rule:

I don't use the Beam (-1/4) modifier. I am of the opinion it takes away too much for its -1/4 value. Instead I split it into multiple -1/4 limitations (which I admit is going a little overboard but I feel like it is as close as I'm gonna get without 1/8th modifiers being a thing):

Does Not Leave Holes (-1/4) - Nearly all mundane weapons, and any number of powers/spell take this modifier to prevent them from being used to blow open walls.

Cannot Be Reduced (-1/4) - Nearly all mundane weapons take this modifier in my campaigns, but especially projectile weapons.

Cannot Be Spread (-1/4) - in CCFHC this is already basically a separate modifier unto itself in the form of Cannot Be Used With [specific Maneuver], except that spreading is a modifier and not technically covered by it.

The main reason I split Beam is because I frequently want to design powers that suffer from one or two of the elements Beam restricts, but almost never all three. Furthermore the prerequisites on Beam (Non-Area Ranged Attacks) prevented me from using it on many power constructs I thought should suffer some, but not all of the limitations of Beam.

It seems like getting the same limitation for 2 of the 3 Beam modifiers as for a Restrainable power, or one which can be taken away (OIF), or one that craps out 1/6 of the time (Activation 14-) is on the generous side. This highlights the limitations on granularity.

 

If you want a power with 13 charges (say, because the character is based on superstitions), the limitation is the same as if you had 16 charges. The answer for "my power is limited, but not as limited as the next gradation" and "my power has some, but not all, benefits of the next gradation of the advantage" has always been "then pay the higher price". It Does Not Leave Holes? A bit limiting, but not enough to be -1/4 is a -0 limitation.

 

Another possibility would be that, if you feel the full Beam limitation is excessive, maybe 2 of the 3 are worth -1/4 (as are all three, but just one is only flavour).

 

Of course, the problem then becomes "My power is more restricted than the other player's so if I don't save points, I don't want to limit it".

 

Let's look at an example. I will put "Cannot be Reduced" on all of my attack powers, and save a -1/4 limitation. Now, we have DNPC Frail Old Aunt June who has been Mind Controlled and is about to pull the Doomsday Switch. We have to take her down, but my full power blast will kill her. 3d6 would easily Stun her, and resolve the issue, with no serious long term injury risk. Wow, I am seriously impeded by that -1/4 limitation now!

 

We cannot let Aunt June pull the Doomsday Switch! I will spread my 15d6 Blast, adding +12 to my OCV to make sure I do not miss her - that makes my OCV 24 - and Pull my Punch so it will only do half BOD.

 

Gosh, I was sure limited by that -1/4 limitation, wasn't I? I guess I did have to use full END when really I only needed 3d6 to do the job.

[Cantriped]

It is worth noting as GM I likely wouldn't let you use "Pulling a Punch" (which is an optional maneuver to start with) on an attack that Cannot Be Reduced. I hadn't thought about using Spreading to achieve the same effect as simply reducing the DCs, with the added side benefit of converting END into an OCV bonus.

When I write up those modifiers I will consider including Cannot Be Spread and Cannot Be Pulled into Cannot be Reduced.

[rravenwood]

 

First House-Rule:

Speed 1: Character's with SPD 1 have their only phase on segment 12, just like everyone else (by RAW in CC/FHC they go on segment 7).

Combat usually starts on segment 12, and the meta-rule of the system everyone is supposed to get at least one phase at the start of combat so that slower combatants don't get knocked out by faster ones before they've acted at least once. Except by RAW everyone gets at least 2 full phases, and superheroes can easily get 3 or 4 full phases, all before SPD 1 gets their first full phase. It wasn't even remotely fair to my giant lumbering SPD 1 super-monster; so I changed it. Personally I think the Speed Chart looks so much nicer with little HERO Hexmen all the way down the Segment 12 column.

 

At least up through 4th edition Hero System rules, this is how it used to be: SPD 1 characters acted on Segment 12.  I don't know if it changed in 5e or was new to 6e.

[Cantriped]

It must have changed in 5th or 5th revised. My wife learned on 4th and remembers it being the way I house-rule it now. I learned on 5th, but I don't have that book anymore to check.

[Chris Goodwin]

It's always been Segment 7 for SPD 1; I just double checked.  In my 3rd and 4th edition books, plus first edition Fantasy Hero, SPD 1's Phase is on Segment 7.  The chart is weird, though; it puts the SPD at the top, and you look down to find the Phases.  That changed in 5e; SPDs were then on the left and you'd look across to find the Phases, like you'd expect. 

[Duke Bushido]

Before going too far, I wish to apologize for the inconvenience in advance: I suspect this reply will have to be split into multiple posts. I am sorry; I know it's a lot, but I so much appreciate the participation of everyone that I feel obligated to do my best to reply to all the really good points you have all made.

 

That being said, let's have some fun!

 

 

Let's asume you have a 250 Point game. But everyone is required to spend 5 points on "Justice League Style Communicator". The 5 Points are a Character Tax. They do not really aid you at all. Indeed that device should just fall under the "what not to Spend points on" rule.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

 

You know, it's odd, but it never occurred to me to actually make the Characters pay points for little things I mandate-- communicators and such. I generally "issue" some standard means of keeping in touch (as Cantriped points out above, it's basic modern technology at its heart). I actually prefer this, because it lets me have a "communications failure" at dramatic moments without actually _penalizing_ the Player: if he had paid points for a communications device and I just went and randomly turned it off, I'm doing something that is robbing him of the points he paid. Certainly no Player has an issue when something like that happens if it happens once in a blue moon and it's very temporary, but making it a sort of recurring thing (you're in the third basement; the signal won't get through. Uh-oh! Solar flare. Nothing but static. Things of that nature) then I'm going to end up with grumpy players.

 

So I tend to "issue" minor things. Now I don't _discourage_ Players from buying such things with points: they end up with more reliable equipment or innate abilities that they aren't going to drop in battle or something like that. And as they are getting something "better" than the freebie, they are still getting real value for their expenditure.

 

Vehicles are the same: Everyone can have a standard off-the-showroom-floor vehicle that is appropriate for their financial level (no Countach for the part-time student librarian ). If they want something more than that, then they are free to buy it. I find "since you didn't point-up for a high-tech Crimemobile, then you're going to have to walk to New Jersey to follow that lead" to rob the fun from _everyone_, GM included. There's nothing "unbalancing" about taking highway 15 in your secret identity then ducking into a truck stop restroom to change into your super suit. _Unpleasant_, certainly, but not unbalancing.

 

To be honest, if there had been vehicle rules in the early days of the game, things might be a bit different in our games; I truly cannot say if they would have or not, but it's possible. Since no one wanted to be Batmunch in the days of yore, the idea of a super-vehicle just never came up. When we needed vehicles, the Characters Secret ID'd it. When one Player suggested a Team Jet, we created vehicle rules. (well, we didn't _exactly_, but we did use the existing rules-- you know what? I'll save that for a later post: it's another "rules violation," but it was born from a need for something before there were actual rules for it. Once the rules happened, we liked the feel of our rules much more, so we stuck with them.)

 

 

 

 

Most often I saw it used in the context of "excessive DEX/SPD/CV values in superheroics".

Superheroic values in DEX, SPD and CV are often very high. In 5E and earlier, they were mostly one Statistic (DEX) to begin with.

That's true. However, Skill Levels allowed Characters to increase their CVs without having to buy DEX up to ridiculous levels. It didn't really solve the DEX / SPD connection, but offering a +1 SPD and +1 CV combo for 8 points did, at least for us. Campaign caps meant you could only buy that once or perhaps twice, depending on the rest of the Character overall. (i.e., it wasn't often available to Speedsters, at least not more than once, as they tended to already have high DEX. Bricks might get it twice-- that sort of thing).

 

That was in the early days, and eventually we simply divorced SPD and DEX all together and then altered the build of base CV to include INT as a factor, believing that presence of mind was every bit as important agility and reflexes in any situation were CV was an issue. I understand that 6e has divorced all three of them, and when I can finally spring for Champions Complete, I'm rather anxious to see if it's something we'd like to adopt.

 

But moving on :

 

 

Even the "slow brick" needs to spend a few points "just to be competitive/properly build". They kind of give something if they fight normals.

Absolutely correct. And it showed on the published Characters time after time. Though to be fair, we didn't see it on most of our own Bricks, simply because the rules (at least up until 4e; I'm not sure if this changed later or not) were so favorable to Bricks that we had always instinctively assumed that having to work a bit harder to keep up with non-Bricks was a sort of meta-balance for just how easy it was to make a terrifyingly powerful Character in the first place. I am not saying that we were right and that it actually was; it's simply how we viewed it at the time (see my earlier comments on the idea that an omission is not always indicative of an oversight).

 

It's funny. You've reminded me of just how many of our Heroic Characters start off (or used to, before we divorced the Defense Characteristics from the formulas) with ED higher than their PD because their Players envisioned the Characters as extremely robust and healthy and durable but not necessarily unusually strong. Is the assumption that while other people were training in boxing and kendo that these people were out eating fire and licking electrical outlets? HA!

 

But most of the time they are just there "because the value should look high".

In a 400 point, 5-7 SPD game even the slow brick has to spend 30 Points on buying up SPD to at least 5. And just so the character is not a total drag on the team/get's to act regulary. Those 30 points are not really "for use as you see fit". You could have just as well started at 5 SPD and reduced points to 370.

Interesting points; thank you. As I noted, perhaps prematurely, we looked at it differently, I suppose. Rather than viewing these issues as "innate penalties," we looked at them as "meta balance." Given that the end results are the same ("If you want this kind of Character, you have to spend X points in places where other Characters do not"), I suppose the only _real_ difference _is_ how you look at them. From one point of view, it's a negate (a "Character Tax," as you described it). From the other point of view, it's a positive ("game balance." Or, if I can reference a comment Hugh made in another thread, the reason your Brick can't buy Mind Control. Think how _unbalancing_ that could get: "Mind Control, Single Command: 'Walk into this Fist!" )

 

Excellent points, though, as always. Thanks.

 

 

 

First House-Rule:

Speed 1: Character's with SPD 1 have their only phase on segment 12, just like everyone else (by RAW in CC/FHC they go on segment 7).

Combat usually starts on segment 12, and the meta-rule of the system everyone is supposed to get at least one phase at the start of combat so that slower combatants don't get knocked out by faster ones before they've acted at least once. Except by RAW everyone gets at least 2 full phases, and superheroes can easily get 3 or 4 full phases, all before SPD 1 gets their first full phase. It wasn't even remotely fair to my giant lumbering SPD 1 super-monster; so I changed it.

Change it to what? My apologies if I missed it. Changed it to Segment 7? We do that in Heroic level stuff, just because we think it's a better simulation of "you are acting throughout the Turn" while greatly reducing the odds of getting clocked out before taking a single step in defense of yourself. It's nice to see that became the official rule, though.

 

 

 

Second House-Rule:

I don't use the Beam (-1/4) modifier. I am of the opinion it takes away too much for its -1/4 value. Instead I split it into multiple -1/4 limitations (which I admit is going a little overboard but I feel like it is as close as I'm gonna get without 1/8th modifiers being a thing):

Does Not Leave Holes (-1/4) - Nearly all mundane weapons, and any number of powers/spell take this modifier to prevent them from being used to blow open walls.

Cannot Be Reduced (-1/4) - Nearly all mundane weapons take this modifier in my campaigns, but especially projectile weapons.

Cannot Be Spread (-1/4) - in CCFHC this is already basically a separate modifier unto itself in the form of Cannot Be Used With [specific Maneuver], except that spreading is a modifier and not technically covered by it.

The main reason I split Beam is because I frequently want to design powers that suffer from one or two of the elements Beam restricts, but almost never all three. Furthermore the prerequisites on Beam (Non-Area Ranged Attacks) prevented me from using it on many power constructs I thought should suffer some, but not all of the limitations of Beam.

We rarely use Beam Weapon as a Limitation, and for the same reasons-- well, those, and it was introduced in an edition we treat more as a sourcebook than a rule book. Though in our games, "Does not Leave holes" is a -0, simply because there is good and bad (it's great if your in a submarine, for example, or if you're worried about hitting the people in the next room by accident. It's bad if you're _trying_ to hit the people in the next room).

 

We don't really provide a value for "Cannot be Spread," either. Sometimes yes, but not generally. Though that goes back more the source material and SFX than it does to combat mechanics. Spreading an attack is just not that common in the source material. I don't think Thor can make his hammer bigger, for example, but certainly he gets his job done. I suppose the reason is because spreading an attack just doesn't come up very often in our games, but even then, (you know, I really wish I knew what even _half_ the words that autocorrect insists upon actually meant. >:\ ) I suspect that's because they don't come up very often in the source material.

 

 

In order to keep Superheroic statistics from feeling like a character tax, the PCs in that campaign fairly frequently fought against large groups of minions that only had 2 or 3 SPD. I also discouraged SPD over 4 unless you are actually a speedster, and even then I discouraged SPD over 6 (I didn't prohibit it mind you, just discouraged)

Agreed! Mooks are more than obstacles! They are a way to share the fun with Players who have voluntarily built slower Characters, and with Players who have yet to be as comfortable or as competent with the system as other people at the table.

 

That, and who doesn't enjoy a little practice, anyway?

 

 

 

[breaking it here-- Duke]

[Duke Bushido]

I think "SPD 1 moves on Ph 7" started before "we start combat on Phase 12".

 

Is it unreasonable that people with SPD higher than 1 have a speed advantage over the lumbering SPD 1 brute? It only matters at the very start, of course. In between actions of the SPD 1 Brute, everyone else will get a number of actions equal to their SPD.

 

[Welcome, Hugh! I'm delighted you've joined us! ]

 

No; it's not _unreasonable_ by any stretch of the imagination. The very design of the Character indicates that you envisioned someone with exactly half the reaction / take action speed as a normal human, after all.

 

But it _does_ have two minor issues. Well, minor in the general scheme of things, but as with anything else, some things are more important to individual groups than are others.

 

The first issue is visualization. By accepted definition (it's been so long that I really can't remember if this is cannon or not, though I _believe_ it is), the Speed Chart, Segments, Phases-- they are all meant as a means of dissecting for playability actions that are considered to be occurring simultaneously during the same 12-second block of time. Anyone: please correct me if I'm mistaken here. As this is (I am assuming) the case, it makes sense that everyone is "starting" one Segment 1 and "finishing" on Segment 12. But given that SPD1 isn't allowed to do anything at all (mechanics-wise, that is) until everyone else is essentially resolving their actions, it's entirely possible that the SPD 1 Character will have absorbed ten or more attacks before even taking a single step. Yes; this is the "trade off" for playability, to be sure. But allowing him to act on Segment 7 gives him at least a slight chance of moving to cover or really getting _anything_ at least _started_ before being dropped by the mass assault of everyone on the other side of the map. It feels more like the source material: even normal human Lex Luthor gets a shot off before Supergod takes him out. If we were going for the most realistic simulation possible, Lex Luthor simply wouldn't have a chance: his reflexes just aren't good enough: Supes gets twelve moves before Lex gets 1.

 

The Flash (one of the few comics I _did_ read as a kid, and I enjoy watching the shows (the 90s one and the current one) with my kids now) has a rogue's gallery filled with "normies." Yet they _do_ manage to get in their licks. I feel comfortable postulating that the Flash is undeniably a SPD 12 Character, perhaps even faster than that. After all, he _does_ seem able to do more than one thing per second. Or ten things per second. Or-- well, you get the idea. So letting SPD 1 Characters act on 7 instead of 12 seems more fitting to the source material (even if Supergod should still be able to dust anyone by Phase 2).

 

 

That leads to the second minor quibble, and for many groups (my own included), it's not so minor:

Fun. Tactics are tactics. It makes tactical sense to reduce the number of foes as fast as possible. It makes tactical sense to take out the Brick (and when there's a SPD 1 Character, isn't is usually a Brick?) first.

 

Under the RAW interpretation, it's nigh impossible for a Brick to even participate in a brawl against agents (not mooks; agents). While he and a team of three or four others may well get his licks in against a team of equal or lesser numbers, agents-- not having actual super powers-- tend to come prepared: give 10 agents good weapons and while a few distract the faster Characters, the rest focus entirely on the Brick, dropping him before he even gets to say "Oh, cool! Agents!"

 

Yes; it does alter the effectiveness of the Brick a bit-- he gets to act sooner than the rules say he should, but it alters the effectiveness of lower SPD Characters to make them _more_ in tune with the source material.

 

Yes: we can certainly re-work the very handling of combat to more effectively model "everyone starts at the same time and finishes at the same time." For example, we could declare that everyone begins to act on Segment 1. Those making half moves divide their move by 6 and move that far on each Segment until the "halfway point" of the end of Segment six. Those making full moves divide their movement by 12 and move that far on each Segment until the end of Segment 12. Those making attacks-- well, you get the idea. A more accurate model, to be sure, but _much_ more laborious and certainly slowing to the overall runtime of combat. Or maybe not. There may be groups out there doing this very thing (if there are, I'd love to hear how it's working for you )

 

 

 

Simply declaring that SPD 1 acts on 7 instead of 12 adds nothing to the bookkeeping or run time, and gives the Player a bit more of an active role in the story.

 

 

To answer my own question, when SPD 2 and SPD 8 each get one action on Ph 12 at the start of combat, I think it is reasonable SPD 1 does as well, so moving that action to Segment 12 makes sense to me.

Sure it does. There's very little in the rules that doesn't make sense, and that's one of the big attractions for me and likely for many others. I even like the "start on 12" rules for combat-- it give it that nice "everyone has a held action for just such a moment" sort of tension going in. I like it a lot.

 

 

It seems like getting the same limitation for 2 of the 3 Beam modifiers as for a Restrainable power, or one which can be taken away (OIF), or one that craps out 1/6 of the time (Activation 14-) is on the generous side. This highlights the limitations on granularity.

 

[sNIP]

 

Another possibility would be that, if you feel the full Beam limitation is excessive, maybe 2 of the 3 are worth -1/4 (as are all three, but just one is only flavour).

 

Of course, the problem then becomes "My power is more restricted than the other player's so if I don't save points, I don't want to limit it".

Agreed. But I don't think I'm the first person to advocate -1/8 Limitations, or to suggest that really minor Limitations be bundled until they are more worthy of -1/4.

 

 

Let's look at an example. I will put "Cannot be Reduced" on all of my attack powers, and save a -1/4 limitation. Now, we have DNPC Frail Old Aunt June who has been Mind Controlled and is about to pull the Doomsday Switch. We have to take her down, but my full power blast will kill her. 3d6 would easily Stun her, and resolve the issue, with no serious long term injury risk. Wow, I am seriously impeded by that -1/4 limitation now!

 

We cannot let Aunt June pull the Doomsday Switch! I will spread my 15d6 Blast, adding +12 to my OCV to make sure I do not miss her - that makes my OCV 24 - and Pull my Punch so it will only do half BOD.

 

Gosh, I was sure limited by that -1/4 limitation, wasn't I? I guess I did have to use full END when really I only needed 3d6 to do the job.

 

 

Do you allow players with "Cannot be Reduced" or "Beam Attack" or anything else that amounts "Must Be Full Power" to pull their punches? I don't, because it is quite clearly a "reduction," but I may be out of step with the rules here. Are there "official" rulings on this? Further on the example: does Spreading an attack not reduce the damage anyway? Depending on who you rule on this (or whether or not your in a submarine), I would feel that the Character _was_ limited.

 

I hadn't really given it much thought about the possibility that Spreading might be considered Reduction, if only because if they _are_ using it at full power, then the Power itself isn't actually being reduced. Even then, if they can't pull the punch, and the Power was strong enough, they may have to Spread it so thin as to hit pretty much everyone in the room, which could put the entire team at a serious disadvantage. Or if there simply wasn't enough room to spread the attack (i.e., "doesn't make holes" can't be spread to go through the walls), then they may have to kill Aunt June anyway (preferably not, of course).

 

I guess it depends on how the group interprets "can't be spread." If it means you can't Pull the Punch (as, for the record, I assume it does), then it may well be worth that -1/4 after all.

 

 

It is worth noting as GM I likely wouldn't let you use "Pulling a Punch" (which is an optional maneuver to start with) on an attack that Cannot Be Reduced. I hadn't thought about using Spreading to achieve the same effect as simply reducing the DCs, with the added side benefit of converting END into an OCV bonus.

When I write up those modifiers I will consider including Cannot Be Spread and Cannot Be Pulled into Cannot be Reduced.

 

I wouldn't allow the punch-pulling either, as stated above. However, (as also stated-- I get ahead of myself sometimes; I am sorry for any confusion that might create), I don't think "cannot be spread" is much of a Limitation _on it's own_. As part of a bundle that combines to really be a potential issue (as with Hugh's excellent example above), it can cause a serious complication (you're welcome, 6e! I finally said it. ).

 

However, I don't think I would disallow Spreading because an attack couldn't be pulled. Having had a few minutes now to think about it (as best as I am able, under the circumstances), I would allow Spreading, but again-- the attack would have to be at full power. That means that the Character may have to decide to either not shoot, or shoot a lot of innocent bystanders as well. (Story opportunities, anyone? )

 

At least up through 4th edition Hero System rules, this is how it used to be: SPD 1 characters acted on Segment 12.  I don't know if it changed in 5e or was new to 6e.

To my best recollection (and forgive me, but I'm in no shape to pore through the book right now) it was the same in 4e, but I don't remember what it was in 5e.

 

Though as a couple of folks pointed out above, as long as I can remember, combat started on Phase 12-- that "jump scare" sort of thing, continued with a free recovery (which we don't use for Heroic level stuff, but we do allow everyone a free "half move" instead), then on to Phase 1. Though again-- it may have been from a later edition and we've used it long enough that it just feels like "always."

 

It must have changed in 5th or 5th revised. My wife learned on 4th and remembers it being the way I house-rule it now. I learned on 5th, but I don't have that book anymore to check.

Well great. Now I've got to get through my surgery then do a lot of reading, because you've all made me very curious.

 

 

Thanks for all the great participation!

 

If I didn't reply to you, it's likely you posted while I was composing all this.

 

If you didn't get a Like as a thanks for joining the conversation (or just generally being great people ), it's because I ran out, but I'll do everything I can to hit you up when I have some more.

 

 

This has been great so far!

 

 

 

 

Duke

[Duke Bushido]

It's always been Segment 7 for SPD 1; I just double checked.  In my 3rd and 4th edition books, plus first edition Fantasy Hero, SPD 1's Phase is on Segment 7.  The chart is weird, though; it puts the SPD at the top, and you look down to find the Phases.  That changed in 5e; SPDs were then on the left and you'd look across to find the Phases, like you'd expect.

HA!

 

Something so simple may have been the cause for a lot of confusion.

 

(I'm out of Like, but I'll make sure to get you some. Thanks for joining in. )

[Hugh Neilson]

It is worth noting as GM I likely wouldn't let you use "Pulling a Punch" (which is an optional maneuver to start with) on an attack that Cannot Be Reduced. I hadn't thought about using Spreading to achieve the same effect as simply reducing the DCs, with the added side benefit of converting END into an OCV bonus.

When I write up those modifiers I will consider including Cannot Be Spread and Cannot Be Pulled into Cannot be Reduced.

But if Cannot Be Spread is part of Cannot be Reduced, then Cannot be Reduced is a more significant limitation, is it not? Again, we're getting into granularity - if Cannot be Reduced includes Cannot Spread and Cannot Pull Punch, what is "Can be reduced, but cannot pull punch", "can be reduced, but cannot be spread" and "can be reduced but cannot be spread or pull punch" worth? For minor benefits, we have Adders. Maybe Subtractors (say, the lesser of 10% of the cost and a flat 3 or 5 points) may be reasonable.

 

Reduced and Pulled Punch are, however, quite different. Reducing my 12d6 Blast carries no combat penalties, but if I only want BOD potential of 6d6, I only get STUN potential of 6d6. Pulling my Punch carries CV modifiers, but means I get the full 12d6 STUN and the risk of the full 12d6 BOD.

 

That's true. However, Skill Levels allowed Characters to increase their CVs without having to buy DEX up to ridiculous levels. It didn't really solve the DEX / SPD connection, but offering a +1 SPD and +1 CV combo for 8 points did, at least for us. Campaign caps meant you could only buy that once or perhaps twice, depending on the rest of the Character overall. (i.e., it wasn't often available to Speedsters, at least not more than once, as they tended to already have high DEX. Bricks might get it twice-- that sort of thing).

DEX/SPD is a myth - you could buy DEX No Figured for 2 points per DEX and buy SPD separately for the same cost. The problem was that the net cost of 6 points was +1 OCV and +1 DCV, so why would you buy a 5 point level to add one or the other sometimes when one more point meant you had both all of the time?

 

Absolutely correct. And it showed on the published Characters time after time.

Someone asked what a "character tax" is. I suggest that setting average Super DEX at 23, average Super CV at 8 and average Super SPD at 5 was and is a character tax. If average Super DEX were, say, 11, average CV were 4 and average SPD were 3, that saves 44 points pre-6e for every character. Simply subtract 12 DEX (CV fell with it) and 2 SPD from every published Super.

 

Scale others down to compensate, but not the full 12, and soldiers can hit that "slow Brick",s DCV of 3 easily - they don't hit his 7 DCV very easily.

 

As you note, everyone wants CON (at least pre-6e) because it's the only cost-effective way to get Figured's.

 

CON is also a character tax - you have to buy at least enough to not be stunned by a campaign average DC hit, or you rarely get to act at all.

 

 

If we were going for the most realistic simulation possible, Lex Luthor simply wouldn't have a chance: his reflexes just aren't good enough: Supes gets twelve moves before Lex gets 1.

 

The Flash (one of the few comics I _did_ read as a kid, and I enjoy watching the shows (the 90s one and the current one) with my kids now) has a rogue's gallery filled with "normies." Yet they _do_ manage to get in their licks. I feel comfortable postulating that the Flash is undeniably a SPD 12 Character, perhaps even faster than that. After all, he _does_ seem able to do more than one thing per second. Or ten things per second. Or-- well, you get the idea. So letting SPD 1 Characters act on 7 instead of 12 seems more fitting to the source material (even if Supergod should still be able to dust anyone by Phase 2).

That makes sense only if we start combat in a new turn. If we don't, then the SPD 1 character should not get to act on Ph 12 as he does not move on Ph 12. I'd rather treat it as "everyone has a quasi-held phase at start of combat, so everyone gets their Ph 12 move. Your next Ph is when it comes up on the chart, and that's 12 if you had a SPD 1.

 

As to those others moving, that strikes me as evidence that Super Speed is not necessarily a SPD of 8 - 12, but other tricks that allow the character to do multiple things in a phase.

 

SPD 1 seems like a choice to take a lot of naps in the game anyway. I don't know that I would knock myself out making a lot of special rules for it.

 

Do you allow players with "Cannot be Reduced" or "Beam Attack" or anything else that amounts "Must Be Full Power" to pull their punches? I don't, because it is quite clearly a "reduction," but I may be out of step with the rules here. Are there "official" rulings on this? Further on the example: does Spreading an attack not reduce the damage anyway? Depending on who you rule on this (or whether or not your in a submarine), I would feel that the Character _was_ limited.

Spreading does reduce the damage. Pulling the punch is a deliberate attempt to hit with less BOD damage, so it seems more like targeting the blow than reducing its power. I can see the ruling, but if the character is required to take the CV penalties, then he's not really reducing the power of the hit. Like Spreading, the power is not being used at less than full power.

 

I hadn't really given it much thought about the possibility that Spreading might be considered Reduction, if only because if they _are_ using it at full power, then the Power itself isn't actually being reduced. Even then, if they can't pull the punch, and the Power was strong enough, they may have to Spread it so thin as to hit pretty much everyone in the room, which could put the entire team at a serious disadvantage. Or if there simply wasn't enough room to spread the attack (i.e., "doesn't make holes" can't be spread to go through the walls), then they may have to kill Aunt June anyway (preferably not, of course).

They can spread to enhance OCV rather than to hit more hexes. There are typically hexes above the field of combat as well, but often Spreading is the answer to that high DCV low defense opponent - I can only hit for my full 12d6 on a 5-, but I can bump that to 9- by dropping damage to 8d6. Still only hits one target - I don't get extra targets AND bonus OCV. So what is "can only spread for one of the two" worth? Another example where every minor nuance cannot have a -1/4 gradation.