Alternate END/Pushing/AP limit rule - Nitpickers wanted

[RDU Neil]

14 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The Haymaker one still bugs me.  There is no reason for anyone to ever use a Haymaker.  But they don't see a lot of use in my games anyway, so maybe that is not such a big deal.

 

Honestly, they almost never got used in my games either... until this one character, I mentioned above, whose mini-brick STR was less than her END/AP (which was higher for her main powers, flying, EB, Force Field) so she started using haymakers when possible, to do more punching damage, but within her "END/AP range"   It is an interesting little side-effect... but yeah... normally Haymaker never gets used. The lag until the "end of Phase" (or end of action round in my game) is pretty penalizing.

[dsatow]

While it works for your group, I don't think it would work for mine.  But as long as your players are having fun with it, more power to you.

[Doc Democracy]

There is a different potential to this you might want to think about.  Often in the JLA the villains focus on the big hitters first.  Perhaps, in game, villains preferentially target the highest AP heroes until one of the minor ones actually does some damage...

 

As for the haymaker issue.  The haymaker, in my mind, is the "finish him" manoeuvre, an opponent is left vulnerable and one last hit puts them to sleep.  In early Champions that was achieved purely from added damage.  Perhaps we should be looking at a different effect - perhaps a chance to make the damage NND, or to apply 4D6 drain to END (which might effectively take the opponent out of the fight).  This is HERO, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Doc

[Crusher Bob]

Another thing to think about is how to handle attacks that trade OCV for more damage.  For example, and OCV 7 DC 10 attack is probably balanced with an OCV 5 DC 12 attack, but if I already have enough END for the DC 12 attack, I might as well make an OCV 7 DC 12 attack instead.

[RDU Neil]

2 hours ago, Crusher Bob said:

Another thing to think about is how to handle attacks that trade OCV for more damage.  For example, and OCV 7 DC 10 attack is probably balanced with an OCV 5 DC 12 attack, but if I already have enough END for the DC 12 attack, I might as well make an OCV 7 DC 12 attack instead.

 

Not quite sure of your example, but if you are referring to "trade OCV combat skill levels for damage" then I don't think it really matters. No maneuver, or damage increase, aside form pushing, can go over the END/AP limit, so the levels wouldn't cause any damage increase. Keeping the levels in OCV is correct. Now, if they had 60 END/AP, but only bought a 10d6 EB for some reason... they could use OCV levels or something else to get the EB to 12d6 without pushing.

 

[Crusher Bob]

It seems to be generally accepted that, say, Martial Strike (+0 OCV, +2 DC) and Offensive Strike (-2 OCV, +4 DC) are a pretty balanced trade off.  So one of the 'problems' your system generates is that there is no way to balance higher DC attacks by lowering the OCV.  If characters are maxed out at (OCV 7 and) DC 10, then there seems to be no way to balance a character who can also make OCV 5 and DC12 attacks, because such a character would need END 60.  Though I guess you could also balance DC and CV in addition to END...

 

Take a look at the sample balance rules here for a system that attempts to balance character CV/DC/Def/SPD

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

The typical group of "we intend these PCs to work together regularly" will generally be the same. The mismatched team-ups are rare. I feel it is as much a player psychology tool as anything in some cases. When players have multiple, sometimes dozens of PCs over the years in different sub-campaigns, it is useful to have those sub-groups have a common level and you can compare characters across those levels. Our "Malta Mercs" campaign was 50-55 END/AP, and essentially cybernetic super soldier/mercs/martial artists doing dirty deeds. The Vanguard eventually reached 600 plus points, 80+ END/AP and taking on world beaters and forging nations and colonizing the solar system by sheer power. I could throw a single 60 END/AP supervillain at the Malta Mercs and have a great fight, that the Vanguard would just take out with the wave of a hand. We, as a play group, actually liked this. There was no thinking that "every PC is equal" just because they are a PC.

The END/AP limit is also not one you casually "increase" as part of spending EXP. Changing that is saying "I'm changing the fundamental nature of this character." Sometimes that makes sense... characters whose power development could go from "well trained agent with nascent TK abilities" and eventually become "Vector of the Vanguard, Psionic Master" with incremental character growth over time. Whereas Vigilante Ninja guy is not really going to ever be more than vigilante ninja guy, no matter how much EXP is earned... without a "radiation accident" or something that transforms the character concept. Both are viable characters, and the END/AP level is just a concrete reminder of character concept, that is only breached with appropriate story/character growth.

 

Again... how it has played out, over time.

 

I see two ways to achieve the same result.  The first is that "PCs we intend to work together regularly" all get the same END/DC Cap automatically for no CP.  I suspect the Malta Mercs aren't 600+ CP characters either, and High Powered Supers would have more CP, probably higher Complications caps, etc.  The AP/END/DC cap flows along with that.

 

The second is to set an END/DC Cap price, but that just means the higher power characters have even more CP above the lower power characters to afford the END/DC Cap needed for their level of power.

 

The selling points drawbacks I see to the first approach:

 

 - since it is purchased with CP, logically the cap is subject to adjustment powers, so it needs to be priced appropriately;

 - since it is a purchase of an ability, a character could reasonably expect to be able to increase it with xp or sell it back to be a bit lower powered, so it needs to be priced appropriately (the inability to do so is another campaign cap, but the ability itself really is the campaign cap);

 - since crossovers are rare special events, with the "PCs regularly working together" being generally the same, there's not a lot of variance within the standard campaign (villain/NPCs can simply have a different cap set - a Big Bad for Malta Mercs might have a 65-70 AP cap, but he would not be a major challenge for even one member of the Vanguard).

 

I see the AP cap as becoming a campaign fundamental (like "you get X starting points and Y complications", or even "equipment costs points" vs "equipment costs money"), rather than something the player can raise or lower by  investing greater or lesser character building resources.  With appropriate story/character growth, the cap could be increased with no XP spent - just as I could take Batman from Detective Comics #27 and beef up his CP to make him the JLA BatGod.

 

12 hours ago, Crusher Bob said:

Another thing to think about is how to handle attacks that trade OCV for more damage.  For example, and OCV 7 DC 10 attack is probably balanced with an OCV 5 DC 12 attack, but if I already have enough END for the DC 12 attack, I might as well make an OCV 7 DC 12 attack instead.

 

I also agree with this issue.  It's kind of "Haymaker Lite".  It shines through for a martial artist more than anyone else, IMO.  If I can only have that extra 2 DCs by sacrificing 2 OCV and 2 DCV, then some spread on DCs in the game might occur.  But if I have to sacrifice the OCV and DCV without getting any added benefit, why would I do so?  If I have the same DC as everyone else only when I have lower OCV and DCV than everyone else, I'm disadvantaged compared to the rest of the group (absent other tradeoffs, like say a higher SPD or better defenses).

 

Mutants and Masterminds sets limits based on character level, so a L10 character has max "damage", "OCV", "defenses" and "DCV" of 10.  However, they can trade off - "Damage" or "OCV" can be up to 2 points higher than level, provided the other is lower by the same amount (so you could be 12 damage, 8 OCV, or 12 OCV, 8 damage, but the two can't total more than 20, and they can't be more than 4 apart). Ditto the defense and DCV abilities.  So you might be 12 DC, 8 OCV, 11 Defenses, 9 DCV.  When reaching L11, you could raise each stat by 1, or maybe you decide to go to 12 DC, 10 OCV, and 13 Defenses, 9 DCV.

 

A similar variance could be built into RDU Neil's system, with the drawback that the system becomes more complex, and we have to figure out what abilities trade off, in what proportions, and what limits.  As M&M was designed around the d20 system, the 1 for 1 tradeoff was already built into the system.  As a very simplistic example, maybe OCV, DC and SPD  trade off, so our 75 END/15 DC cap becomes (say) a campaign standard of 9 OCV, 15 DC, 5 SPD.  You can raise any of the three, within limits, by 1 if you lower the other(s), so maybe you could have 8 OCV, 17 DC, 3 SPD, or 10 OCV, 12 DC, 7 SPD.  It becomes more chalenging in Hero due to workarounds (eg I'll drop my OCV to the minimum, bump DCs and SPD and make all of my attacks AoE Accurate, for example).

[RDU Neil]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. 

1. You are implying that the RAW implicitly sets a trade-off between DC and CV. A character with lower DC but higher CV is equivalent of someone with higher DC but lower CV.
2. This is reinforced by the idea that you can spend OCV levels to increase DC in certain circumstances.

If so, ok. Totally get that, but can't say that has ever been a conscious mentality in our games. i.e. one player saying "I'm 12 DC 8 OCV guy" and the other saying "I'm 10 DC 10 OCV guy, different but equal." (Just saying I don't know that this has ever come up that literally in our play group.) This is a common character concept/thought process in other games?

 

So what this boils down to is an expectation of not just an AP/DC cap... but a CV cap... or an expectation that there is give and take between the two for balance reasons.  Right?

Interesting. I have just never thought about that. Usually CV and balance comes up more with DCV and Defenses. The higher the defenses, the lower the DCV. Hard to hit vs. hard to hurt. We all know that Hero is not a system that allows the "minimal defenses, I just never get hit" guy to work. But the system allows you to build defenses to mimic the concept of "never get hit" like Combat Luck or Damage Reduction, etc.

 

So... does a cap (whatever form that takes) need to take into account CV. Hmmm... hadn't considered that, as it hasn't really been an issue that has needed addressing in my games, but worth consideration. The END as a cap was never intended to reflect limits on anything other that DC and general AP level.

[Crusher Bob]

2 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

If so, ok. Totally get that, but can't say that has ever been a conscious mentality in our games. i.e. one player saying "I'm 12 DC 8 OCV guy" and the other saying "I'm 10 DC 10 OCV guy, different but equal." (Just saying I don't know that this has ever come up that literally in our play group.) This is a common character concept/thought process in other games?

 

It comes up, yes.  The 'problem' with balancing the campaign with just caps means that either all of the characters are at the caps (sorta same and boring) or that the players who are good at character creation are at the caps, and the players who aren't good at character creation are below those caps (not a good play experience for those players).

 

So, one of the alternatives to that is a system of 'forced trade offs' instead of simple caps.

 

Shorts example:

The 'average hero' has CV 7, DC 10, Def 25, and SPD 5.

 

You character gains one 'free' advance in any one of those categories.  You may also trade an advance from 'average' to 'high' in exchange for lowering one of your other categories to 'low'

 

Trade off amounts are: CV 2 points, DC 2, Def 5, SPD 1

 

So example legal characters could looks like:

CV 9, DC 12, Def 20, SPD 5 (tank hunter/ martial artist style character example: Spiderman) (CV: UP, DC UP, Def Down, SPD: Avg)

CV 7, DC 12, Def 30, SPD 4 (standard brick style character) (CV: Avg, DC UP, Def UP,  SPD, Down)

CV 7, DC 10, Def 30, SPD 5 (Def: UP, rest Avg)

etc

 

[RDU Neil]

I think the disconnect for me on this is that we have essentially applied this rule retroactively to PCs already in play, and in doing so, it has helped to indicate "Hey... The Terran in an 87 END/AP character, but Hope is a 70 END/AP character, even though they are built on the same points. Are we all cool with that?"

 

Variation in characters has never been an issue for us*, and in many instances using this new END/AP cap was a very visible way of showing "You do realize your character is more powerful than all the others, right?" And then making sure the group is ok with that. As a play group, everyone builds their characters with the group in mind, and if something is "off" (too weak or too powerful) the group will discuss it and the character get changed. That proprietary sense of character is important for "who they are and their place in the game world" but not so much in how they are built on the page. that gets fiddled with all the time, even mid-game, to make sure it plays out in a fun way.

 

(* I'm confident I could give the exact same character sheet to all my players, and let them come up with the SFX independently, and play them, and it would feel pretty cool and dynamically different. Variation has rarely been an issue for us... so much of it is in the SFX and role playing. The only time it has been commented on was, as the "big three" Vector, Locke and Thermal, became more and more godlike over the years, they tended to begin to have similar base builds... each has Life support, Power Defense, Flash Defense, etc.  Mainly because at that level it made sense that they had a certain level of defense to things that lower powered characters may or may not be able to handle. I remember when the old 4th Ed supplement for the Olympian gods came out, and there was a "Divine Package" or some sort, that basically said, "Aside from what makes them different, ALL the gods have this basic powerset" and had defenses, flight, shape change, etc... because it was where the gods were similar. This was happening organically in the really powerful PCs as they evolved. What was important and distincitive at lower levels was just baseline assumption at higher levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/23/2018 at 7:13 AM, RDU Neil said:

Let me see if I understand this correctly. 

1. You are implying that the RAW implicitly sets a trade-off between DC and CV. A character with lower DC but higher CV is equivalent of someone with higher DC but lower CV.
2. This is reinforced by the idea that you can spend OCV levels to increase DC in certain circumstances.

If so, ok. Totally get that, but can't say that has ever been a conscious mentality in our games. i.e. one player saying "I'm 12 DC 8 OCV guy" and the other saying "I'm 10 DC 10 OCV guy, different but equal." (Just saying I don't know that this has ever come up that literally in our play group.) This is a common character concept/thought process in other games?

 

 

Maneuvers, especially Martial Maneuvers, also imply a tradeoff.  As damage rises, CV bonuses fall.  I think the "art" of Hero goes beyond just OCV/DC and DCV/Defenses.  It works in M&M to a greater extent because the d20 system better equates these, and also because they do not have the Speed stat to balance off against.  But I think it is more an art ("these guys seem roughly comparable")  than the exact science you describe, so I don't see it come up literally either.

 

But if we set a cap that no one can exceed 12, or 14 DC, how often does someone design an 8 DC character?  Not often, because everyone wants to be competitive in game (the same reason we do not see groups where one player is Batman and the rest are Alfred, Commissioner Gordon and Ace the Bat-Hound, or even Robin and Batgirl).  If we all have 14 DC, but one of us has an 8 OCV and 4 SPD, another has a 10 OCV and 5 SPD, and the third has 12 OCV and a 7 SPD, with no other variables, I'm pretty confident we can tell which character is more powerful, and which is less powerful.

 

Now, in our group, I can't recall seeing "His character has a broken ability - he is too powerful - that should be nerfed".  Rather, what I have seen is "Wow - that ability is really effective - how can we leverage that to make the group more powerful?", but if it reaches the point that either one character feels like they are ineffectual, or all but one are much less powerful (my Bat-Campagn example), we have a problem.

 

EXAMPLE FOR THE "ONE CHARACTER LAGS":  The Fantastic Four make a great Hero team, and players will happily play either the Thing (Brick Icon) or the Torch (Blaster Icon).  Reed, not so much, but he's still effective, just not a standard archetype.  Invisible Woman - SURE - until you tell me we are playing FF #1 character sheets, so she has Sight Group invisibility and nothing else.  Really, if you read the comics, you can tell when a fourth player joined the group.  Up until then, Sue was Reed's competent DNPC, 14-.  Useful sometimes, but more often captured or threatened and needing to be rescued.  Then the fourth player took on that role, Reed swapped in a Psych Limit for the DNPC, and we powered the character sheet up to SuperHero by adding the force fields.

 

21 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

I think the disconnect for me on this is that we have essentially applied this rule retroactively to PCs already in play, and in doing so, it has helped to indicate "Hey... The Terran in an 87 END/AP character, but Hope is a 70 END/AP character, even though they are built on the same points. Are we all cool with that?"

 

Variation in characters has never been an issue for us*, and in many instances using this new END/AP cap was a very visible way of showing "You do realize your character is more powerful than all the others, right?" And then making sure the group is ok with that. As a play group, everyone builds their characters with the group in mind, and if something is "off" (too weak or too powerful) the group will discuss it and the character get changed. That proprietary sense of character is important for "who they are and their place in the game world" but not so much in how they are built on the page. that gets fiddled with all the time, even mid-game, to make sure it plays out in a fun way.

 

I will suggest that the answer may be that Terran's higher AP powers/DC attacks is offset by Hope being superior in some other respects.  Can I riff off of this?

 

Maybe Terran is a big brute brick - really strong (gets that 87 AP), tough, but poor CVs and a 4 SPD.

 

Now let's add in Hope - 70 AP/14DC, but better CVs, 5 SPD, with DCV offsetting lower defenses and OCV and SPD offsetting lower damage.

 

And we'll toss in The Archer - 62 AP/12 DC, but 6 SPD, even better CVs and a Swiss Army Multipower.  No, he doesn;t do 15d6 Armor Piercing, or even a 14d6 Blast, but he has a 12d6 Blast, a 10d6 3 shot Autofire, an array of Flashes, Drains, Entangles, AP, Penetrating, KAs, AoEs, NNDs, etc. etc. etc.  What he lacks in raw power is offset in versatility.

 

So Hope and Archer are fine with Terran having a much higher attack because it does not mean he is more powerful, just powerful in a different way.

[RDU Neil]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

But if we set a cap that no one can exceed 12, or 14 DC, how often does someone design an 8 DC character?  Not often, because everyone wants to be competitive in game (the same reason we do not see groups where one player is Batman and the rest are Alfred, Commissioner Gordon and Ace the Bat-Hound, or even Robin and Batgirl). 

 

Right... if a player wanted to try a lower AP/END character in a sub-campaign designed for higher, it would be a conscious choice, with the group's permission, with a build that still allowed them to contribute/participate in the game. (In most cases, what happens is that the AP/END really isn't as low as the think it will be, it just isn't spent on raw damage and defense.) Sometimes the player wants to play a type of character (I love Daredevil!) but the sub-campaign is more "Avengers vs. Kree!) and it just doesn't fit. That is why we have other sub-campaigns, so we can play the "crime fighting martial arts team" in their own milieu.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I will suggest that the answer may be that Terran's higher AP powers/DC attacks is offset by Hope being superior in some other respects.  Can I riff off of this?

 

Maybe Terran is a big brute brick - really strong (gets that 87 AP), tough, but poor CVs and a 4 SPD.

 

Now let's add in Hope - 70 AP/14DC, but better CVs, 5 SPD, with DCV offsetting lower defenses and OCV and SPD offsetting lower damage.

 

And we'll toss in The Archer - 62 AP/12 DC, but 6 SPD, even better CVs and a Swiss Army Multipower.  No, he doesn;t do 15d6 Armor Piercing, or even a 14d6 Blast, but he has a 12d6 Blast, a 10d6 3 shot Autofire, an array of Flashes, Drains, Entangles, AP, Penetrating, KAs, AoEs, NNDs, etc. etc. etc.  What he lacks in raw power is offset in versatility.

 

So Hope and Archer are fine with Terran having a much higher attack because it does not mean he is more powerful, just powerful in a different way.

 

Basically, yes. What you wrote/riffed is essentially the more detailed version of "Are we all cool with that?"  Differences of END/AP only really matter if the "in play" feels wrong, unbalanced, unfun during actual play. If the guy playing Bat Hound is really ok with mostly running around barking to alert the others and tugging on the villains cape to distract him while Batman does all the real work, and all the players are having fun with that, then there isn't a problem.  (Usually, of course, that is not the case.)

 

You are right, that SPD is a key balancing factor. In the example above, Terran is a 5 and Hope a 7. While not a significant a difference in my game as RAW, it is still a noticeable advantage to Hope that Terran doesn't have.

There is basically five key concepts of "combat competence" right? 

1) Number of actions - Speed

2) Damage dealt - DC level

3) Defenses - PD/ED, etc.

4) Ability to hit - OCV

5) Avoiding being hit - DCV

 

Not that I'm advocating such, but is there some kind of equation that could be figured that is a good estimate of balancing combat competence?

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/24/2018 at 10:20 AM, RDU Neil said:

Right... if a player wanted to try a lower AP/END character in a sub-campaign designed for higher, it would be a conscious choice, with the group's permission, with a build that still allowed them to contribute/participate in the game. (In most cases, what happens is that the AP/END really isn't as low as the think it will be, it just isn't spent on raw damage and defense.)

 

Sure - but I can do that without adding the AP/END mechanic simply by not buying that aspect of my character to campaign maximum.

 

On 8/24/2018 at 10:20 AM, RDU Neil said:

Sometimes the player wants to play a type of character (I love Daredevil!) but the sub-campaign is more "Avengers vs. Kree!) and it just doesn't fit. That is why we have other sub-campaigns, so we can play the "crime fighting martial arts team" in their own milieu.

 

That analogy can be extended to any character that does not fit the game parameters.  I love playing world-defending Supers, but that doesn't really fit as a character concept in a Fantasy or Horror game.

 

On 8/24/2018 at 10:20 AM, RDU Neil said:

Basically, yes. What you wrote/riffed is essentially the more detailed version of "Are we all cool with that?"  Differences of END/AP only really matter if the "in play" feels wrong, unbalanced, unfun during actual play.

 

But that really indicates "are we cool with that?"  "Yes" means "Do we agree that the AP/END limit is not defining character capability adequately to be a great benchmark".

 

One issue I see is that you are using this for two separate purposes, one to change the Pushing mechanics and a second to set character caps.  If the former is making the game better, but the latter is not, why not only keep the former?  For example:

 

 - You can Push at your discretion, with no EGO rolls.

 

 - If you Push, you can add up to half the Pushed power's AP for one action.

 

 - Pushing is exhausting.  When you Push, the AP you added is applied to reduce all similar abilities.  We have focused on attacks, but maybe I wanted to Push my Flight to get to save a civilian I could not otherwise reach, or my Force Field to weather a huge attack.  This needs work - maybe the AP reduce the campaign max AP so none of your powers can exceed that.  You pushed your 12m Running to 15m to get to that falling DNPC and catch him.  You can still run 12m, but your campaign max attacks are reduced by 3 AP.

 

 - When you recover, your REC also reduces your AP penalty from Pushing.  [Other options exist - maybe this is only one REC per turn, PS 12 does not apply, it's per minute, or even per day - depends on how long-term you want the impact to be.  In your game, you seem to want this used a lot, so recovering fast is imperative for that to be played.]

 

On 8/24/2018 at 10:20 AM, RDU Neil said:

If the guy playing Bat Hound is really ok with mostly running around barking to alert the others and tugging on the villains cape to distract him while Batman does all the real work, and all the players are having fun with that, then there isn't a problem.  (Usually, of course, that is not the case.)

 

I find everyone wants to feel they are contributing, and some want to contribute in specific ways.  Ace the Bat Hound could be written up on the same points as everyone else, with subtle powers that boost or assist his teammates.  My character could have Aids, Drains and Flash powers that impede the enemy, buff my allies, but never let me land the deciding blow, and I could be overpowered for the game, yet still feel underpowered because "all the glory" goes to my teammates, who actively defeat the villains.

 

What tends to happen is that Daredevil's Martial Arts and billy club get buffed so he is doing damage comparable to Iron Man and Captain America, he has Combat Luck (augmented, of course, by his super-senses) sufficient to weather Kree attacks about as well as the rest of the team, and what he lacks in being a couple of DCs and a few defenses below the rest of the team is offset by higher SPD, better CV and other abilities.

 

We see this in Hero builds since Day 1 - the most superhuman DEX and SPD stats are on characters described as highly trained normals (because they lack the more obvous superhuman defenses and attacks).

 

On 8/24/2018 at 10:20 AM, RDU Neil said:

You are right, that SPD is a key balancing factor. In the example above, Terran is a 5 and Hope a 7. While not a significant a difference in my game as RAW, it is still a noticeable advantage to Hope that Terran doesn't have.

There is basically five key concepts of "combat competence" right? 

1) Number of actions - Speed

2) Damage dealt - DC level

3) Defenses - PD/ED, etc.

4) Ability to hit - OCV

5) Avoiding being hit - DCV

 

Not that I'm advocating such, but is there some kind of equation that could be figured that is a good estimate of balancing combat competence?

 

Again, I come back to "an art, rather than a science".  There have been many "rule of X" attempts, but I find none to be perfect.  For example, a high SPD needed to Dive for Cover because of low defenses can leave the character still feeling useless. 

 

Damage dealt isn't just DCs.  Maybe your attack goes against rare defenses.  Draining certain abilities is powerful, more so if power defenses are rare.  This is where versatility can be important too, providing more options to hit the target where he's weak.  One huge attack isn't as effective when fighting large numbers of lower powered opponents.

 

Defenses can be "not getting hit", being desolid, etc.  Or just huge CON, STUN and REC.

 

I don't need OCV as much if my attacks are (or can be) AoE, Accurate, etc.  Just being able to convert DCs of a massive attack to OCV is great against a high DCV, low defense target.  So what if you have OCV 15 on your 10 DC attack?  Blasto the Great can augment his 9 OCV to 15 by dropping his 18 DCs to 12.

 

IMO, Hero has too many parts to make an easy formula, which leads to "are we all cool with this?"  Problems in play may indicate a need to revisit the character's effectiveness. 

[Doc Democracy]

I think there can always be an easy formula but finding it might not be so easy.

 

Neil has the beginnings of a great idea, it is obvious we both see potential and we are talking details.  HERO is indeed complex with a lot of moving parts.  The question is that when you change a fundamental mechanism how far you have to change the other bits.

 

I think that we either have to change almost nothing, just like Neil has with his group, or you need to make wholesale changes (and this is where you lose the advantages of a system played for decades that you can balance on instinct).

 

I am a tinkerer and so wholesale is attractive to me.  The idea that we have an element of the build that explicitly dictates the relative power of the character is interesting.  I wonder if you need a different way of buying powers.  If you are an 80AP character then you simply buy the powers you have access to.  You pay for access to offensive powers - maybe 40 points for full AP, 30 for 75% AP, etc.  That makes AP a multiplier in power.  You also pay for access to defensive powers.  This is needs to balance to offence and so you pay (1/2 AP) points for half campaign max defences, 3/4 AP (for 3/4 defences) and AP points for max defences.  This means the more you pay for access to high offences, the more you need to pay for defences.  I think SPD also needs to balance against offence and so I want to have SPD 4 for free and each additional point of SPD cost AP/2.  This requires a campaign to have a max defence listed (which players can exceed if they want to pay for it).

 

This is all completely off the top of my head but it is attractive because it is actually quite simple.  God knows if it is balanced.  I also need to think about non-offensive or defensive powers.

 

I don't think Neil was thinking of going this far, it is essentially re-writing the system but it is the direction I think the conversation is going.  If we want something more limited then I think we want to stick almost exclusively to how END and fatigue works.  ?

[RDU Neil]

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I don't think Neil was thinking of going this far, it is essentially re-writing the system but it is the direction I think the conversation is going. 

 

Correct. You guys have fun!    I'll read along to see what comes out of it, for sure, but I'm not really interested in re-writing everything.

[Duke Bushido]

I really like what you've done, Neil, 

 

and honestly, reading / brainstorming with Hugh was always one of my favorite things to do when I was active here in the past, so just reading this thread has been a blast for me.

 

I don't have anything at all to add on what you've cobbled together here (again, I really like it.  It doesn't work for me, but I respect the solidity of it).  I just chimed in to mention something to you:

 

I played, many years ago, in a group that didn't track END.  They had come from another system that was less book-keeping intensive, so I understood why they would want to minimize the bookkeeping.  Let's face it: few games out there take as much real time for combat as does HERO.  At any rate, their solution for Pushing was to burn Stun instead of END.  It kept them from having to track END separately, and had the side effect of keeping players from pushing until it was one of those dramatic, all-or-nothing moments, which was kind of fun.

 

Just thought I'd mention it.

 

Have fun!

 

Duke

 

[Doc Democracy]

9 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Correct. You guys have fun!    I'll read along to see what comes out of it, for sure, but I'm not really interested in re-writing everything.

   

Such a shame, in the shower I was thinking that SPD could be related to AP and status.  You get a base SPD and add one for every opponent of your status or higher in the combat.  If you are 15 AP lower than everyone else of your status you get an additional action.

 

it begins to provide an advantage for being underpowered and means there is a mechanical reason that the big bad does not hit very often but when he dies it could be devstating....

 

anyway.  I think all that could go to different threads, we should try to pull it back to the END/AP/fatigue system you want.

 

Doc

 

[RDU Neil]

12 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think all that could go to different threads, we should try to pull it back to the END/AP/fatigue system you want.

 

Oh... keep using this thread. I've got what I wanted in terms of a list of problematic areas I need to be able to address. It has helped me shape my END/AP/DC cap a little more.

 

1. END and Adjustment Powers - I'm just going with my original concept that END is a meta-stat, buy your AP/DC level, no more/extra for any reason. Can't be affected by Adjustment Powers. (I ran this past my players and they were like, "Makes sense. Bio-energy Draining Lad would just drain other stats (CON, STR, Stun)."
2. Autofire - Will only allow +1/2 Advantage cost or more
3. The odd "one off" power that breaks the END/AP limit. - Already handled in a case by case "play group allows or disallows it" situation. (Hasn't come up, yet.)
4. Allowing up to 1/2 AP Pushes may be "too much". - (Going to try the following...) Two choices to push, Pushed (+10 AP) or  Mega-Push (x 1.5 AP.) Both require a full action (no half move push attack) and Mega-Push is like Haymaker, it goes off at the end of the attack round (end of segment) and you are at 1/2 DCV. 
5. Dropping to 0 Stun may be too punishing, keeping a PC dropped early out of the fight. - Going to let this play out. So far has actually been dramatically effective. I will play test allowing a new bonus with my Chit Rules, where spending a high power chit will let you recover your END up to full (not Stun). This would allow that "stagger back to your feet to keep fighting, but one more hit and you are out (END is full, but Stun is barely above zero.)

Reminds me that there is a hard rule in the draft of Ron Edwards' Champions Now about dropping to zero Stun (and END) and getting back up. You can do it once per fight, but if you go down again, you are at GM's option, la la land. (There are no negatives in his version. Zero is zero.) I really like that rule, and will probably adopt it. 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Reminds me that there is a hard rule in the draft of Ron Edwards' Champions Now about dropping to zero Stun (and END) and getting back up. You can do it once per fight, but if you go down again, you are at GM's option, la la land. (There are no negatives in his version. Zero is zero.) I really like that rule, and will probably adopt it. 

 

 

Overall, sounds like you are in playtest territory - better to see how it goes than look for new issues.

 

To the above, I have come to like the +0 to -9 STUN" rule.  This is "heavily stunned" but still on your feet.  Applying this rule - that the character is still conscious, does not fall over, etc. - largely removes the "hit him while he is down so he stays down" issue.  A hit in that state still does double Stun.

 

I especially like it because it continues one issue I really liked when I first saw Hero - other games tended to "you are either fully combat-capable or you are dead".  Hero added "dying", "KO'd" and "Stunned", plus "heavily stunned" although it took me longer to recognize the last one.

 

But the idea that you can only recover from being below that level once in a combat makes sense (you could even let some level of luck chit bypass that, reviving either myself or one other character without it counting as the "one time" for that combat.

[RDU Neil]

15 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

To the above, I have come to like the +0 to -9 STUN" rule.  This is "heavily stunned" but still on your feet.  Applying this rule - that the character is still conscious, does not fall over, etc. - largely removes the "hit him while he is down so he stays down" issue.  A hit in that state still does double Stun. 

 

I especially like it because it continues one issue I really liked when I first saw Hero - other games tended to "you are either fully combat-capable or you are dead".  Hero added "dying", "KO'd" and "Stunned", plus "heavily stunned" although it took me longer to recognize the last one. 

 

But the idea that you can only recover from being below that level once in a combat makes sense (you could even let some level of luck chit bypass that, reviving either myself or one other character without it counting as the "one time" for that combat.

 

I really, really like this interpretation. "Heavily Stunned"... very interesting. Do you allow actions in the "Heavily Stunned" state or is it just the "doesn't fall over" aspect. i.e. the character still can do nothing but Recover, and is at 0 DCV, they are just staggering up, rather than on the ground? 

[RDU Neil]

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

At any rate, their solution for Pushing was to burn Stun instead of END.  It kept them from having to track END separately, and had the side effect of keeping players from pushing until it was one of those dramatic, all-or-nothing moments, which was kind of fun.

 

Whoa... missed this post earlier. I do like this idea, and it is worth considering. Nobody seems to really mind tracking Stun and Body (anecdotally, over 38 years) but they do hate tracking END.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I really, really like this interpretation. "Heavily Stunned"... very interesting. Do you allow actions in the "Heavily Stunned" state or is it just the "doesn't fall over" aspect. i.e. the character still can do nothing but Recover, and is at 0 DCV, they are just staggering up, rather than on the ground? 

 

This is not a house rule - it's RAW.  The character is knocked out and can do nothing but recover, are DCV 0, etc.  Whichever rule book you are using, I expect you will find this rule. 

 

It is a candidate for "most frequently overlooked rule in the book", though.

 

3 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Whoa... missed this post earlier. I do like this idea, and it is worth considering. Nobody seems to really mind tracking Stun and Body (anecdotally, over 38 years) but they do hate tracking END.

 

Most gamers are used to tracking something "hit point like".  Even Mutants & Masterminds, which is entirely based on d20 saves rather than hp, requires tracking hits, as they penalize future saves (missing and missing by x having further effects).

[RDU Neil]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This is not a house rule - it's RAW.  The character is knocked out and can do nothing but recover, are DCV 0, etc.  Whichever rule book you are using, I expect you will find this rule. 

 

So, by RAW, 0 to -9, the character is still standing, but knocked out?  I'll look at the books. I've always played the mechanical result... DCV 0, has to recover and x2 Stun if hit... but your comment about upright staggering and not down on the ground was what I thought was different. So, if the punch that puts someone into 0 to -9 range doesn't do knockback/knockdown, the character is still standing, but effectively "unconscious" by the rules?

 

I've always played it that way to an extent. I'll describe the villain as "they hit the ground, head spinning, there is a that brief rag-doll look... FOR THE MOMENT they are out of it"... at which point the PCs curb stomp him accordingly. If the character is "Con stunned"... I tend to say, "they stagger... not down, clearly trying to shake it off. You rang their bell!" which also tends to prompt a follow up, hoping to hit before they recover.

 

If a character is -10 or more, I will indicate, "They are down, rag doll and not moving..." which tends to imply truly unconscious... but also tends to provoke a curb stomping anyway.

[Duke Bushido]

Dude--

 

I mean absolutely no criticism of how you and yours have fun with the game, sincerely.

 

But curb stomping?

 

Are they the bad guys?

 

[RDU Neil]

25 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Dude--

 

I mean absolutely no criticism of how you and yours have fun with the game, sincerely.

 

But curb stomping?

 

Are they the bad guys?

 

 

Heh... just me being a bit hyperbolic. In the supers campaign, they are quite the heroes... but if we were to talk about our Secret Worlds campaign... an assassin, a mob boss, a criminal hacker, a ex SAS mercenary, a maybe-insane ex-VDU explosives expert, a mad-psychologists spreading conspiracy memes, and a pacifist yogi being corrupted into a kill squad lead by an ex-Mossad fixer. That game, good is... relative, at best.