Departing from the rules: curiosity

[Amorkca]

I too was curious about the speed chart and as far back as 1987, the speed 1 character moved on segment 7.

 

In all honesty I've been playing Champions for... Decades.. (Imagine that) and have never had a speed 1 character...

 

So I would house rule that should such a creature exist it would get to move on Segment 12 as "Combat Begins" and then move to Segment 7 as that comes up... Presuming their still conscious/alive at that point.

[Hyper-Man]

Devil's advocate voice....

 

I don't believe there are any creatures presented as possible threats that have less than 2 SPD.  I think the SPD 1/Phase 7 logic is based on the possibility of SPD being Drained down to that value.

 

But as usual, I could be totally wrong.

 

HM

[Duke Bushido]

But if Cannot Be Spread is part of Cannot be Reduced, then Cannot be Reduced is a more significant limitation, is it not?

Of course it is. This is purely my own opinion, and likely not worth the electrons it's printed on, that's really a vital part of how it gets to be worth -/4 (in lieu of a -1/8 option, that is). This goes back to "real weapon" and "beam weapon," in a way. If you have a revolver, you can pick one or the other, but I won't let you have both. However, I will probably be okay a mesh of elements of similar "limiting" capabilities for the same value as one or the other.

 

Again, we're getting into granularity

For which I have an unabashed joy.

 

 

can be reduced but cannot be spread or pull punch" worth?

By itself? Roughly the same thing that it's worth for Hand Attack, HtH Killing Attack, or even STR, I suppose, which is a fairly solid "nothing." Unless we accept that it's part of why STR is one-for-one (at least, up to 5e. Don't know what it is in 6).

 

Ohh--

 

I was always irked by the interpretation that Haymaker could be applied to non-STR-based attacks. Perhaps we can compensate by allow STR to be Spread? (or are there rules for that now?)

 

 

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.

Now this is interesting....

 

I wish my head was a bit more clear, as this sounds like it would be fun to investigate. Perhaps later in the week I'll find some time. Though I've not seen Adders as inexpensive if you're going to put an Advantage on a power. At least, not as we've always taken it: total the cost, add the Adders, _then_ do the Advantages math. Put a couple of Advantages on something and the Adder gets a bit more pricey. Sure, the Power does, too, but if something is being considered a "minor" Advantage, then why should its cost increase because the Power took an Advantage?

 

 

 

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.

I am willing to agree to disagree. While I _do_ see the validity of your point, I find both of these maneuvers to be reduction of the strength of the Power. The mechanical effects balance the loss of power, so "point value" is still there, but I feel that "must be full strength" is a disadvantage because of the idea that the Character cannot dial down the lethality of the attack itself, and therefore cannot willingly "pull" the attack. To put it another way, I feel that the Limitation addresses that the Power must be used "full on" as opposed to "full points." As stated though, finding no specific rulings during my quick run through, I totally agree that your take on it is just as valid.

 

Though while I'm thinking about it, has anyone seen a published Character with a build limited by "cannot be pulled?" It's hauntingly familiar, but it could just be something that pops up on guns and rockets and the like. I'm curious to know what the Official universe determined the value of this to be as a stand-alone Limitation.

 

 

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?

You wouldn't. Since we divorced the DEX from SPD and CV, we have CV-specific levels- that is, Levels specifically to raise both OCV and DCV as if buying up any other Characteristic. They are 5-point levels (I know: the math says 6 pts, but this makes them more attractive than simply throwing everything into DEX and gives us more consistent ranges for DEX, SPD, and CV, which is never a bad thing.

 

Actually, I shouldn't say "We." I take part in four different campaigns. The 5-pt levels only occur in one HEROIC-level game. Dex divorce occurs in one other game (a Supers game), but the "CV Levels" are six-point levels and are considered to be Characteristics as opposed to "merely" Levels.

 

 

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.

For the most part, we weren't really doing it for the Figureds. Sure, it was a nice benefit, but mostly it was happening in Heroic level stuff (most of our Supers had STR equal to or higher than their CON) because the players _wanted_ robust adventurers. Who wants to journey to foreign jungles or faraway planets and contract space measles or some such thing? Most of the players envisioned their characters as hearty adventurers, able to keep going in spite of injury or ailment, etc-- you know: really high CON. And of course:

 

 

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.

That right there. No one wanted to be knocked senseless with a simple sucker punch.

 

 

They can spread to enhance OCV rather than to hit more hexes.

Perhaps I'm a literalist (I've certainly seen evidence of it ), but in a game the specifically hinges itself on SFX, I have to assume that descriptions are to be taken literally. I have no mental image to justify "spreading to increase my chance to hit" that does not involve "make the beam wider and taller. I accept that this does both things: it makes the beam weaker at any given contact, and it increases the odds of hitting a target. It does that because the presenting dimension of the attack is much, much larger than it was: it's been spread, after all.

 

I have no concept of how something can be "spread" without making it larger in at least two dimensions. After all, it's very much akin to dilution: that spread out stuff as to go _somewhere_, and I can't accept that it simply disappears and returns as increased targeting skills. Sure, it's book-legal, and it make things much more combat-without-repercussion-y, but I can't rationalize it.

 

And again, maybe that's just me. I can't say.

 

But I don't have a problem with Spreading while under the Limitation "Can't be reduced." However, I'm going to require that the damage-dealing component of that Power is not reduced, either. Generally, think something along the line of AOE: Cone, or AOE: line being "swapped-in" as a Power Stunt. That's more-or-less how we handle it. (Not precisely, but reasonable enough facsimile for conversation.

 

 

Another example where every minor nuance cannot have a -1/4 gradation.

Yes, Another example of why Limitation Bundling should be considered valid, or why -1/8 or even -1/16 Limitations-- or perhaps even your proposed "Subtractors" deserve serious consideration.

 

And another reason why (and this is a personal crusade that is, as the name implies, really only important to me) that Combat!-Combat!-Combat! should not be the most significant determinant of a Power's "effectiveness."

[Cantriped]

...

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).

...

Beam (or Does Not Leave Holes) doesn't actually prevent an attack from penetrating a wall or Barrier power. What "hole" means in this context is that the power does not leave a 2m diameter cavity that you can walk through afterwards. The default rules (as of 6th at least), is that all Attack Powers which do BODY (even STR punches) core out 2m areas of walls and Barriers.

Note; every mundane firearm in the books takes Beam (unless it affects an area and therefore can't), and many of these weapons are more than capable to piercing a submarine.

[Duke Bushido]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I had assumed it was some sort of Limitation based on the AoE: conforms to area build in that it simply would not penetrate a wall.

 

Well.... Now I want to think about what such a Limitation would be worth.

[rravenwood]

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. 

 

Well heck, you're right.  Mea culpa!  I had referenced a PDF of the 4th edition Hero System Rulesbook where the Segment and Speed labels apparently got switched.  Cracking open my hardcopy BBB just  now, however, shows the vertical label as Segment and the horizontal label as Speed.  (As do other 3rd/2nd/1st edition books...)

 

Sorry for the confusion!

 

Does anyone have a hardcopy of the 4th ed. HSR handy to see if the inversion is present there too, or if it's just a mistake in the PDF?

[rravenwood]

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."

 

 

If I may try to redeem myself, I can say with certainty that combat starting on Phase 12 was first introduced in Espionage! and issue #1 of Adventurers Club magazine.  The example of combat in Champions 2e - once the GM decides to start going by the Speed Chart - begins with Segment 1.  Regardless, we're still talking about long enough ago to feel like "always"

[Hugh Neilson]

By itself? Roughly the same thing that it's worth for Hand Attack, HtH Killing Attack, or even STR, I suppose, which is a fairly solid "nothing." Unless we accept that it's part of why STR is one-for-one (at least, up to 5e. Don't know what it is in 6).

So can I lose “Can Spread” from my ranged attack and in exchange add my STR to the AP of the attack and use it to grab and throw? Spreading was a benefit for Energy Blast in 2e (although it was indicated it was always intended to be there from 1e), later extended to other attacks.

 

I was always irked by the interpretation that Haymaker could be applied to non-STR-based attacks. Perhaps we can compensate by allow STR to be Spread? (or are there rules for that now?)

Why? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that maneuvers not be restricted to STR.

 

I am willing to agree to disagree. While I _do_ see the validity of your point, I find both of these maneuvers to be reduction of the strength of the Power. The mechanical effects balance the loss of power, so "point value" is still there, but I feel that "must be full strength" is a disadvantage because of the idea that the Character cannot dial down the lethality of the attack itself, and therefore cannot willingly "pull" the attack. To put it another way, I feel that the Limitation addresses that the Power must be used "full on" as opposed to "full points." As stated though, finding no specific rulings during my quick run through, I totally agree that your take on it is just as valid.

Pulling a Punch halves the BOD. Given reducing the BOD to nil is a -0 limitation, I fail to see why being able to reduce it by half by suffering a CV penalty should be a more significant benefit. However, I can certainly see the inability to Pull the Punch being removed as part of making the limitation worth -1/4. It doesn’t really change my example much. Spread is the big deal.

 

You wouldn't. Since we divorced the DEX from SPD and CV, we have CV-specific levels- that is, Levels specifically to raise both OCV and DCV as if buying up any other Characteristic. They are 5-point levels (I know: the math says 6 pts, but this makes them more attractive than simply throwing everything into DEX and gives us more consistent ranges for DEX, SPD, and CV, which is never a bad thing.

Given 6e divorced DEX from CV and made each of OCV and DCV cost 5 points each, it seems you were ahead of your time.

 

Perhaps I'm a literalist (I've certainly seen evidence of it ), but in a game the specifically hinges itself on SFX, I have to assume that descriptions are to be taken literally. I have no mental image to justify "spreading to increase my chance to hit" that does not involve "make the beam wider and taller. I accept that this does both things: it makes the beam weaker at any given contact, and it increases the odds of hitting a target. It does that because the presenting dimension of the attack is much, much larger than it was: it's been spread, after all.

Literalist would suggest Energy Blasts cannot attack PD and Flash can only be a bright light. That said, I envision Spreading as permitting the attack to be widened into multiple hexes (Invictus being an excellent example – extra dice only to spread to hit two targets) to strike multiple targets, or dispersing it over a wider area within a single hex to make it more difficult for the single target to avoid being struck.

 

Ultimately, I think -1/4 is a reasonable floor. If you want something not limiting enough to mandate even -1/4, then it is -0. The point values are not worth the added complexity. Of course, one could simply have a group of minor limitations sufficient in tandem to be worth -1/4 as a Limited Power.

 

This reminds me of another point. Many of us "depart from the rules" without actually departing from the rules. We can be more or less lenient in pricing limitations and disadvantages/complications, allowing Caution or Stop powers, and allowing "however at the GMs options" like special powers in power frameworks. We're using RAW in different configurations, which is the nature of the toolkit.

 

"All PCs have SPD 4" could be considered either a departure from RAW or a campaign setting, for example.

[Duke Bushido]

Devil's advocate voice....

 

I don't believe there are any creatures presented as possible threats that have less than 2 SPD.  I think the SPD 1/Phase 7 logic is based on the possibility of SPD being Drained down to that value.

 

But as usual, I could be totally wrong.

 

HM

You are not wrong! Well, I can only speak from my point of view, but yes; I was envisioning Drain or the rarest of really, _really_ large monsters. Mostly having been Adjusted or injured down to SPD 1 though; yes.

 

 

Well heck, you're right.  Mea culpa!  I had referenced a PDF of the 4th edition Hero System Rulesbook

Holy smokes! Where do you get a copy of _that_?! I didn't even know there _was_ a PDF of 4e. My BBB is falling to pieces, and while I like the decided Champions slant to it (what can I say? "Champions" will always be the HERO system for me ), it would be nice to have something I could peruse without having to be quite so mindful of the shower of pages. I'm envious.

 

Sorry for the confusion!

Don't sweat it. If it makes you feel any better, I think I've already made nine mistakes in this thread alone! Don't worry, though: I'll get it up to a nice round number before the conversation peters out, I assure you.

 

I can say with certainty that combat starting on Phase 12 was first introduced in Espionage! and issue #1 of Adventurers Club magazine.

Man, you got all the good stuff, didn't you? . I was never so lucky as have anywhere near me I could get AC mags, and I didn't even know that Espionage! or Danger: International existed until after BBB wasn't really "new" anymore.

 

 

The example of combat in Champions 2e - once the GM decides to start going by the Speed Chart - begins with Segment 1.  Regardless, we're still talking about long enough ago to feel like "always"

That's hilarious! I'll explain in a bit, but your post made me drag out my copy and check for myself. Yep. There's a clear "switch" to the chart. We followed that example to the letter for years and years and years. HA! When later editions talked about "starting on Phase 12," it really never clicked with me that this was somehow different from what we'd been doing. All we thought at the time was "Well how about that. We've been forgetting the post-12 Recovery." Heh heh heh heh... that tickled me immensely. Thanks.

 

 

[got to break this somewhere. Between participants seems logical. -- Duke]

[Duke Bushido]

[And now for Part The Second! ]

 

 

So can I lose “Can Spread” from my ranged attack and in exchange add my STR to the AP of the attack and use it to grab and throw? Spreading was a benefit for Energy Blast in 2e (although it was indicated it was always intended to be there from 1e), later extended to other attacks.

Well no; of course not. I apologize. I thought it was clear that I was speaking hyperbolically in the context of making a joke. I had not intended to waste your time without at least giving you a chuckle. No; I have no interest in arguing for the addition of "spreading a punch." Besides, isn't that what Sweep is for? >

 

 

 

Why? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that maneuvers not be restricted to STR.

Violent sports, I think. Or aggressive childhood. Or too much pro wrestling! :-) Seriously, though, it goes back to semantics: A "Haymaker" is a very specific sort of physical strike. Sometimes called the "Alabama Roundhouse" or "Farmboy Finisher." Unless you whiff it, in which case the names get funnier. But that's it, really. That, and odd ideas about meta-balance. No; I'm not saying we need that for meta-balance, but as I've alluded to in this and other conversations, I never considered omissions to be unintentional: it didn't say you could do it, early on, so you couldn't do it.

 

(you know, it's funny how much my own rules set has changed over the years given how much importance I've placed on following the rules specifically, isn't it? HA!)

 

 

Pulling a Punch halves the BOD. Given reducing the BOD to nil is a -0 limitation, I fail to see why being able to reduce it by half by suffering a CV penalty should be a more significant benefit. However, I can certainly see the inability to Pull the Punch being removed as part of making the limitation worth -1/4. It doesn’t really change my example much. Spread is the big deal.

I don't think my muddle presentation helped, either. I was saying (badly, I see now) that if I considered "Cannot be Reduced" to be worth -1/4, then it would be because it was "bundled" with similar Limitations. Thus, I would rule that you couldn't do either of those things, at least not as I understood your presentation of them. I am sincerely sorry for the misleading phraseology.

 

 

Given 6e divorced DEX from CV and made each of OCV and DCV cost 5 points each, it seems you were ahead of your time.

OH NO!

 

I'm playing 6e! NOoooo! heh heh heh.... in all sincerity, I'm sure there is just as much "good" in 6e as there was in 5e. I don't play them as-presented because I didn't find _enough_ good in 5e (for me personally) to do much more than mine it for bits and pieces, and that being the case I just can't justify the expense of 6e, which I suspect is "more of the same, with a few divorced stats, higher word count, and cutting the base unit of distance in half." That and the Speed Chart. I've seen the speed chart. While there are no changes to it at in functionality, I prefer simple Xs to the clutter of hex men. They're distracting. (okay, that's _really_ minor, but it's more for the humor to demonstrate that I'm not trying to vilify 6e at all; I just can't _justify_ it for myself. Period.)

 

 

Literalist would suggest Energy Blasts cannot attack PD and Flash can only be a bright light.

You've been in at least two conversations with me now where I've stated that we renamed "Energy Blast" to "Ranged Attack" even before there was a 3e. I think you may have inadvertently proven to me that I have a problem..... ;-)

 

And you're right: "Flash" has bugged me since the first time someone suggested using it against Hearing. I just can't find a simple word that conveys the same meaning without specifying sense. Seriously. I've tried. There are several words and phrases, but I really would like something simple and clean.

 

That said, I envision Spreading as permitting the attack to be widened into multiple hexes (Invictus being an excellent example – extra dice only to spread to hit two targets) to strike multiple targets, or dispersing it over a wider area within a single hex to make it more difficult for the single target to avoid being struck.

Then you and I are essentially in agreement here. It's also why I think it increases the odds of hitting someone else on accident. Not because you missed your target, but because your attack was wide enough to clip them.

 

Out of curiosity, do either of the newer editions specify a mechanic (beyond the meta mechanics of END = OCV) for how much an attack actually "spreads?" Because now I'm very curious to know if that was ever formalized.

 

 

Ultimately, I think -1/4 is a reasonable floor.

As do I, for the most part. However, if a Player has enough _legitimate_ and reasonably-related "-0" Limitations, I have on occasion allowed them to be "bundled" into a -1/4.

 

But again, granularity makes a difference. if a game is featuring "Cosmic" power levels-- which will likely differ from table to table, but let's just say starting characters are throwing around 30 DC attacks. At that level, a -1/8 is going to make a pretty significant different in cost (using RAW), and using our group's method, it's going to make a reasonable difference in Range and potentially (I say "potentially" because I don't know if I'd allow it, never having been willing to award a -1/8 before) in END cost as well.

 

 

This reminds me of another point. Many of us "depart from the rules" without actually departing from the rules. We can be more or less lenient in pricing limitations and disadvantages/complications, allowing Caution or Stop powers, and allowing "however at the GMs options" like special powers in power frameworks. We're using RAW in different configurations, which is the nature of the toolkit.

You are absolutely right. However, the exact same can be said if we were using only two rules and ran the rest on random whim: the rules specifically state use what you want and ignore the rest. No; I'm not trying to be contrary at all. It's just one of the things that comes to my mind when I follow a "how do I do X" thread and discussions become a bit too heated over what is RAW and what isn't.

 

Yes: I _totally_ see the value of sticking to RAW for exercises such as "let's tinker with X (fond memories of you, Sean Waters, if you're as active as you used to be)" threads, and the importance of sticking with edition-specific RAW when someone asks a question: it gives everyone involved a common frame of reference.

 

Outside that, we _are_, as you say, all stay playing the same game.

 

 

And with that, friends, I am going to turn in. Surgery in five hours.

 

Good night!

 

Duke

[whitekeys]

You know you've been skimming too many HERO Forum posts when...

 

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.

 

... I read this as "..we really didn't realize that for a year or two. Hand Attack!)"

[Hugh Neilson]

Well no; of course not. I apologize. I thought it was clear that I was speaking hyperbolically in the context of making a joke. I had not intended to waste your time without at least giving you a chuckle. No; I have no interest in arguing for the addition of "spreading a punch." Besides, isn't that what Sweep is for? >

Sweep (and Rapid Attack) was enfolded into Multiple Attack. Hitting more than once at an OCV penalty is pretty different from reducing damage to enhance OCV (although I suppose one could optimize various OCV/DCV and defense levels). Lots of options, and they have largely grown between editions.

 

Seriously, though, it goes back to semantics: A "Haymaker" is a very specific sort of physical strike.

A basic unmodified OCV, DCV and damage attack is a “strike”. It is all semantics, and should not be taken as restricted to a single SFX. However…

 

No; I'm not saying we need that for meta-balance, but as I've alluded to in this and other conversations, I never considered omissions to be unintentional: it didn't say you could do it, early on, so you couldn't do it.

There’s no doubt that the change from “combat maneuvers are for STR” to “all attacks can use combat maneuvers” was a significant one – early editions, only STR had combat maneuvers. We still don’t have ranged martial arts in the core rules (the Martial Arts supplement covers them).

 

You've been in at least two conversations with me now where I've stated that we renamed "Energy Blast" to "Ranged Attack" even before there was a 3e. I think you may have inadvertently proven to me that I have a problem..... ;-)

Sigh…makes it tough to envision Combat Luck (although we saw a lot more Limited Damage Reduction in our games before that build was published), or a Force Field with a Fire special effect – it’s a FORCE field, not a FIRE field!

 

Then you and I are essentially in agreement here. It's also why I think it increases the odds of hitting someone else on accident. Not because you missed your target, but because your attack was wide enough to clip them.

The mechanic provides the choice of targeting people in multiple hexes, or targeting one target with enhanced OCV. The latter should not open up friendly fire (but could reasonable enhance the usual 3 OCV of a wild shot given the SFX) any more than it opens up the possibility of hitting other enemies. In any case, if I’ve used Spreading to drop my damage low enough to cause no permanent injury to Aunt June, I’m probably OK if some others also get in the line of fire.

 

Out of curiosity, do either of the newer editions specify a mechanic (beyond the meta mechanics of END = OCV) for how much an attack actually "spreads?" Because now I'm very curious to know if that was ever formalized.

The reverse, IMO – “mechanics are not linked to specific SFX” is a Hero meta-rule.

 

But again, granularity makes a difference. if a game is featuring "Cosmic" power levels-- which will likely differ from table to table, but let's just say starting characters are throwing around 30 DC attacks. At that level, a -1/8 is going to make a pretty significant different in cost (using RAW), and using our group's method, it's going to make a reasonable difference in Range and potentially (I say "potentially" because I don't know if I'd allow it, never having been willing to award a -1/8 before) in END cost as well.

On 150 points, as the sole limitation, -1/8 would save 17 points (versus 30 for -1/4). Not sure that 17 points is any more significant to a Cosmic Super than 7 is to a standard Super (the savings on 60 points). In any case, there needs to be a minimum, just like we don’t track fractional points.

[Duke Bushido]

You know you've been skimming too many HERO Forum posts when...

 

 

... I read this as "..we really didn't realize that for a year or two. Hand Attack!)"

Well I'd laugh again, but I don't want to give the impression that you've been assaulted.

 

 

 

Sweep (and Rapid Attack) was enfolded into Multiple Attack. Hitting more than once at an OCV penalty is pretty different from reducing damage to enhance OCV (although I suppose one could optimize various OCV/DCV and defense levels). Lots of options, and they have largely grown between editions.

Hmmm... I'm wondering if some sort of one-off "Reduced Penetration" based build might be used to "pull" a punch-- that is, if I have a player who has chosen "cannot be reduced." There would still be full dice thrown. There would still be a significant chance to inadvertently injure someone....

 

It's not something I'm prepared to discuss; it's more "wondering out loud." ;-)

 

 

A basic unmodified OCV, DCV and damage attack is a “strike”. It is all semantics, and should not be taken as restricted to a single SFX.

Yes. But I didn't mean rules-wise. I meant walking down the street and being assaulted. If your brain says "Haymaker!" are you going to drag a punch from somewhere behind your spine and whip it around to noon, or tag him with both tasers? "Strike" in the real-world sense of "I attack by putting a bony part of my body into a sensitive part of his body."

 

 

 

There’s no doubt that the change from “combat maneuvers are for STR” to “all attacks can use combat maneuvers” was a significant one – early editions, only STR had combat maneuvers. We still don’t have ranged martial arts in the core rules (the Martial Arts supplement covers them).

Sad, isn't it? I mean, Hero wants to be (and mostly is, since we can use existing rules to model as many new rules as we want), but we have to pick up a splatbook to make rules-legal builds for Gun Fu or a Schtick with throwing knives of Shuriken or even Telekinetic brawling.

 

 

 

Sigh…makes it tough to envision Combat Luck

So tough that I don't allow it, actually. I've even had it presented to me under other names. While I respect that John Wayne armor is a valid part of action stories (Heroic level particularly), at my table, if you want "Luck," then buy Luck. If you want some weird fiddly thing with random Defenses only while being attacked--

 

That's not really a Limitation. That's exactly what Defenses are _for_.

 

 

(although we saw a lot more Limited Damage Reduction in our games before that build was published),

As did we. Of course, since I don't allow that build, we still see them.

 

or a Force Field with a Fire special effect – it’s a FORCE field, not a FIRE field!

No; that's not difficult at all. Fire _is_ a force, after all. Nothing in the name of Force Field or its description implies that it's something that has to ring when you rap a knuckle on it.

 

Now that being said, as I've mentioned before, we lean on SFX over mechanics. For us, no matter how many volumes of rules and meta stuff gets published, it's the interaction of SFX that makes each situation unique. If you have a Forcefield based on fire, there should be a _really_ good reason it stops other fire, for example. Or X-ray-based attacks. (Those are probably going to get through at our table, though).

 

 

 

The mechanic provides the choice of targeting people in multiple hexes, or targeting one target with enhanced OCV. The latter should not open up friendly fire (but could reasonable enhance the usual 3 OCV of a wild shot given the SFX) any more than it opens up the possibility of hitting other enemies. In any case, if I’ve used Spreading to drop my damage low enough to cause no permanent injury to Aunt June, I’m probably OK if some others also get in the line of fire.

if you're reasonably satisfied with the possibility that someone else _might_ catch a bit of fringe, then I don't think we differ too terribly much at all. That is, I think we "quibble" more than actually disagree: I would prefer something I can see on a map; you're okay without it. Is that about right?

 

 

In any case, there needs to be a minimum,

I quite agree. It is for this reason that if a Player wants any points value for a rather minor Limitation (for the sake of the conversation, let's call them "Annoyances"), then I will require a reasonable enough bundle of them, and I will require that there be a genuine drawback from the Annoyance (none of this "attack doesn't work while sleeping" nonsense) that taken together, they are worth -1/4. Much like "Can't be reduced." I'm going to take that in the way that makes this Limitation actually worth a -1/4: you are not going to be able to pull or spread or do anything else that reduces the actual number of damage dice thrown. If you have a creative way to possibly reduce the affect of those dice (perhaps, as I mentioned above, a Power Skill roll to attempt Reduced Penetration), than I may allow that as a one-off.

 

 

Meds wearing off. Going to turn in now.

 

Thanks to everyone!

 

 

Duke

[Hugh Neilson]

So tough that I don't allow it, actually. I've even had it presented to me under other names. While I respect that John Wayne armor is a valid part of action stories (Heroic level particularly), at my table, if you want "Luck," then buy Luck. If you want some weird fiddly thing with random Defenses only while being attacked--

So do you prohibit "flight, only in contact with a surface"? It's not really flight any more, after all. The mechanics are just mechanics. We add the SFX. [i recall an old X-Men writeup where the author noted Storm's gliding is just called gliding - she's using Flight.]

 

 

if you're reasonably satisfied with the possibility that someone else _might_ catch a bit of fringe, then I don't think we differ too terribly much at all. That is, I think we "quibble" more than actually disagree: I would prefer something I can see on a map; you're okay without it. Is that about right?

That "somebody" would need to be in the direct line of fire, and the attack needs to miss Aunt June (ie the same people who would have been in danger from any other missed attack, although I think I like the idea that the OCV added by Spreading increases the base 0 OCV to hit with a random, untargeted attack). Spreading to hit a bigger area is a separate option - if I don't get the benefits of both, the drawbacks of both are also not in play.

[Duke Bushido]

So do you prohibit "flight, only in contact with a surface"? It's not really flight any more, after all.

No. It's still "Flight," after all. By strictest definition, the Character can stop on the side of the building and he stays there. If he wants to take a Limitation to prevent that, that's on him. But it's base essence-- Flight-- is unchanged.

 

Defense, however, is not Luck.

[rravenwood]

Holy smokes! Where do you get a copy of _that_?! I didn't even know there _was_ a PDF of 4e. My BBB is falling to pieces, and while I like the decided Champions slant to it (what can I say? "Champions" will always be the HERO system for me ), it would be nice to have something I could peruse without having to be quite so mindful of the shower of pages. I'm envious.

 

Actually it was given to me by an old acquaintance a few years ago when I was first starting to get interested in RPGs again - I had mentioned to him that I wished I still had my old Hero Games books (I never got rid of my characters and notes, thankfully!), and he ended up giving me a small stack of discs which he was going to toss out anyway.  Most of it was old character writeups and the like, but it did include this PDF.  I subsequently bought a used copy of the BBB (as part of the small mountain of books I picked up over time to restock my Hero library), but have been using the PDF as my main 4th edition reference - although now, after the Speed Chart debacle, I'm suspicious of its veracity.  If I find a used copy of the HSR that doesn't cost an extraordinary amount, I'll probably pick it up and ditch the PDF.  I owned it back in the day, and it was a handier reference than the beloved-but-still-bulkier BBB.

 

 

Man, you got all the good stuff, didn't you? . I was never so lucky as have anywhere near me I could get AC mags, and I didn't even know that Espionage! or Danger: International existed until after BBB wasn't really "new" anymore.

 

Memory is shaky, but I'm fairly sure that I wasn't aware of AC from the first issue but rather a few issues into the run - I was lucky enough to be able to pick up copies of the ones I'd missed, though (which wasn't too difficult way back in the 80s, at least in my neck of the woods).  Silly me got rid of the magazines along with the books, however, so I had to re-acquire them - I'm glad my wife is so understanding

 

 

That's hilarious! I'll explain in a bit, but your post made me drag out my copy and check for myself. Yep. There's a clear "switch" to the chart. We followed that example to the letter for years and years and years. HA! When later editions talked about "starting on Phase 12," it really never clicked with me that this was somehow different from what we'd been doing. All we thought at the time was "Well how about that. We've been forgetting the post-12 Recovery." Heh heh heh heh... that tickled me immensely. Thanks.

 

Yeah, I really thought that my old group had always started combat on Segment 12 all along too, and was mildly surprised when I re-read 2e Champions a few years ago.  Maybe for the first few games we had begun on Segment 1, but it was too long ago to recall clearly - I can't recall if I started with Hero in '82 or '83, but I suspect it was probably '83, by which time both Espionage! and AC were out there, so our GM may have already incorporated the rule into those first games.  Memories

[Hugh Neilson]

No. It's still "Flight," after all. By strictest definition, the Character can stop on the side of the building and he stays there. If he wants to take a Limitation to prevent that, that's on him. But it's base essence-- Flight-- is unchanged.

 

Defense, however, is not Luck.

 

That's absurd - show me one flying creature who has to maintain contact with a surface!

 

Poor defense is bad luck, so why isn't good defense lucky?