Hero system 7 ideas

[Vanquisher]

Bring back transfer. Its easier than combining drain and aid.

instead of free haps pay for them with experience or creation points. 1 point for 10 HAPS which are renewed each session.

Make drain cost more rather than have all the exceptions instead of the double cost for defensive characteristics. I'm thinking 20 to 25 per die of drain.

As an advantage of +0 Have a set number instead of a die roll. For example energy blast of 10 damage class would be multiplied by 3.5 or 4 per dc which would give you a constant 35 or 40 stun and 10 body

As  an advantage of +1/4 have the set number be x5 and a +1/2 advantage be x6 with double body per each damage class.

non-accumulating as a +2 limitation for area effecting powers so only the damage of one die roll per phase is not added to the following or previous damage rolls.

A power called Doesn't take body costing 50 character points which can't be combined with takes no stun.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Here's some of what's in my "what I'd do to 7th edition"

• Increase cost of Endurance Stat  to 3 END per 1 point
• Increase cost of Recovery Stat to 3 REC per 2 points
• Followers/Summon: not 5 points to double, but a percentage of total cost (so super cheap creatures are not more expensive to double than just buy) but with max cost
• System that allows Aid to grant powers rather than simply enhance
• Restructure Mental powers to be less like presence attacks and more like transform
• Rebuild power defense: 3/2 for everything, 1/1 for specifics; but always resistant (-½ limitation to be non-resistant)
• Change Environment can create some positive effects, less about saving throw effects and more about altering environment
• Flash defense for non combat senses = -½ limitation
• Growth strip away all stat bonuses, leave only reach etc, recost
• Rebuild Deflection (add in reflection as a variant)
• Return Missile Deflection but clarify to be not everything rather missiles and similar attacks rather than allowing everyone to deflect ranged attacks
• Healing does not have a time limit on it, increase cost to 15/d6 and suggest limitations
• Reintroduce Spirit Rules
• Make HA and Blast into one attack with either STR adds or range
• Return Transfer as a Talent-like build (ie all the math is in the background)
• Return Instant Change as a Talent-like build (ie all the math is in the background)
• Add in some of the APG ideas
• Recostskill levels so they are more attractive than just CV
• Better, clearer version of Hero Points (don't start with 2d6 for one thing)
• In the "breaking things/environment" section note how to use adjustment powers on non-statted items like fires, etc in a simple manner
• Adjacent Sense Modifier = up to 5m distant
• AE "Surface" double in area for cost
• AE "Any" double in area for cost
• Damage over Time becomes "Effect Over Time" allowing broader conceptual use.
• Simplify Skill list (reduce overlap, strip down skills like TF and WF to simpler structures)

I like the idea of the "takes no Body" option, it makes sense for some builds and concepts.  You cannot kill it, only defeat it, temporarily.

[Lord Liaden]

What I would do with a hypothetical Seventh Edition is avoid it like the plague.

 

By this point the rules have been combed through, deconstructed, revised, game-balanced, clarified, optionized, and hair-split to within an inch of their lives. There are no more pressing problems in the system that need to be addressed. Any further modifications would simply reflect the personal opinions and preferences of whoever was given responsibility for creating a new edition; and we all already modify the RAW to suit our preferences anyway. For alternative ways of doing things, we have earlier editions to draw from.

 

I see no need and feel no desire to invest time and money learning yet another iteration of Hero.

[Duke Bushido]

49 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

What I would do with a hypothetical Seventh Edition is avoid it like the plague.

 

I'm way ahead of the curve on that

 

also:

 

what the hell is haps?

 

[Spence]

11 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

what the hell is haps?

 

Heroic Action Points?

 

As for a 7th Edition? 

Take 5th Edition Revised, place new cover reading 7th Edition.  Viola!!  Mission accomplished.

[Lord Liaden]

And then you can celebrate by playing your viola.

[Duke Bushido]

7 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

And then you can celebrate by playing your viola.

 

 

Nope.  He capitalized it.

 

You celebrate by going to dinner with Viola.  

 

[Duke Bushido]

10 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

Heroic Action Points?

 

Maybe.  It didn't click for me in all-small.  Not that it matters; I don't use them anyway.  It just doesn't feel like Champions.  while I would like to, I can't be more specific than that: too many of the games I didn't care for use that kind of thing; none of the ones I do like _do_ use it.  Probably why I never went for the newer rules options on Luck, either: roll your Luck dice and you have that many pips to influence die rolls, etc-- not my thing, at least not for this game.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

As for a 7th Edition? 

Take 5th Edition Revised, place new cover reading 7th Edition.  Viola!!  Mission accomplished.

 

Just make it one of those stretchy book covers, because I promise there are at least six possibly opinions about which books to re-wrap.  

 

 

[Spence]

4 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Just make it one of those stretchy book covers, because I promise there are at least six possibly opinions about which books to re-wrap.  

 

👍

[Spence]

6 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Maybe.  It didn't click for me in all-small.  Not that it matters; I don't use them anyway.  It just doesn't feel like Champions.  while I would like to, I can't be more specific than that: too many of the games I didn't care for use that kind of thing; none of the ones I do like _do_ use it.  Probably why I never went for the newer rules options on Luck, either: roll your Luck dice and you have that many pips to influence die rolls, etc-- not my thing, at least not for this game.

 

I've used similar items for several games that worked well and enhanced the cinematic feel. 

 

The Hero version of them don't really work.  They are too.....sanitary or sterile.    Hero tends to go overboard in point values and forgets that once the building is complete the game itself needs to be flexible.  IMO, this got really bad 6th ed and on.  But that is for another thread.

 

I have a version borrowing heavily on the 2d20 Momentum/Doom dynamic which I may try out sometime.  Or not....

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I think any 7th Ed, were it ever to be considered, should be a true "new edition".  Throw away the preconceptions, and if reverse compatibility must go, so be it.

 

I think 6e missed an opportunity in divorcing DEX from CVs, OCV froom DCV, mCV from Ego, OmCV from DmCV - and then making every character exactly as they were made in prior editions, when DEX/EGO determined OCV and DCV/mOCV and mDCV.

 

As LL and others note above, the differences between the editions have moved from "systemic" to "personal preference".  6e definitely proved any change of substance will have a significant share of detractors as we pine for Comeliness, Figures Characteristics, etc.

 

Maybe 7e should be The Biggest of them All - just publish every rule and ability with its 1e through 6e versions, side by side, each an alternate rule - now it's the Toolbox of Ultimate Toolboxes.

 

The reality is that, with D&D leading the charge, the gaming industry moved from "new edition tweaks old rules" to "new edition is an all-new game".  Hero never really bought in to that.  Which is great for those of us who love Hero, but has been less great for those trying to make a living writing and selling Hero.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I think 6e missed an opportunity in divorcing DEX from CVs, OCV froom DCV, mCV from Ego, OmCV from DmCV - and then making every character exactly as they were made in prior editions, when DEX/EGO determined OCV and DCV/mOCV and mDCV.

 

I keep seeing that criticism repeated, and I have to respectfully strongly disagree. I've read many published 6E character write-ups where those Characteristics differed noticeably, even substantially, from the calculations in previous editions. Let me take as one example Valak the World-Ravager, who first appeared for 5E in Champions Universe: News Of The World, and for 6E in Champions Villains Volume Three: Solo Villains. On his character sheet for both editions Valak's DEX is 21 and EGO is 26.

 

5E: OCV: 7, DCV: 7, ECV: 9

6E: OCV: 9, DCV: 8, OMCV: 3, DMCV: 10

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

The Hero version of them don't really work.  They are too.....sanitary or sterile.   

 

Yeah the Hero version isn't quite right, its not a bad idea for the reasons given in the book but not handled quite properly.

[Lord Liaden]

I tend to be skeptical of stating subjective opinion as though it were objective fact. HAP do what they were designed to do. You have a right to dislike that design, but that's a separate issue.

[Spence]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I tend to be skeptical of stating subjective opinion as though it were objective fact. HAP do what they were designed to do. You have a right to dislike that design, but that's a separate issue.

Or.....perhaps stop taking a subjective conversations about opinions and personal preferences as fact?  Hmmmmmmm? 😇

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

When that's how they're expressed, I most definitely will.

[Duke Bushido]

Well here's personal opinion and a fact, but at least they should be obvious:

 

No new edition!

 

I am ignoring too damned many books and rules as it is now!

 

[Lord Liaden]

My own Hero games continue to be based on Fifth Edition, with an infusion of elements from Fourth. Fifth hit my personal sweet spot in terms of rule comprehensiveness, but I just plain like the way Fourth does some things better. I won't deny that familiarity and comfort have a lot to do with my preference; but the very high degree of compatibility between those two editions, and the metric buttload of resources published for both, give me a vast diverse array of material I can draw from.

 

I appreciate what SETAC attempted to do in designing Sixth, and I don't blame anyone who prefers it. But I never felt enough of a need for it to switch over. And as I made (perhaps too) abundantly clear upthread, I feel even less need for a Seventh Edition.

[Spence]

16 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

My own Hero games continue to be based on Fifth Edition, with an infusion of elements from Fourth. Fifth hit my personal sweet spot in terms of rule comprehensiveness, but I just plain like the way Fourth does some things better. I won't deny that familiarity and comfort have a lot to do with my preference; but the very high degree of compatibility between those two editions, and the metric buttload of resources published for both, give me a vast diverse array of material I can draw from.

 

I appreciate what SETAC attempted to do in designing Sixth, and I don't blame anyone who prefers it. But I never felt enough of a need for it to switch over. And as I made (perhaps too) abundantly clear upthread, I feel even less need for a Seventh Edition.

 

You mirror my preferences very closely.  I guess my leaning toward 5thR over 4th is more availability of books.  I only have a few 4th ed books, but I have 3 full copies of 5thR plus 5 copies of the 5th ed Character Creation Handbook which is basically all of the build rules.  This means everyone at the table can have a book. 

[Lord Liaden]

Very reasonable. I own a vast array of supplements for both 4E and 5E, as well as fan-created stuff off the Internet; and like to pull NPCs, prebuilt powers, setting elements, adventures, and the like to simplify life for myself and my players.

[Duke Bushido]

34 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

 I guess my leaning toward 5thR over 4th is more availability of books.

 

 

Which makes perfect sense; both of you.  5th was really just 4th with more hairs split here and there a few slight changes to powers and some new combat-related skills.  5e is not really "different" from 4th so much as it _is_ 4th with some well-tested house rules, just like you'd find at most any 4e GM's table.  In terms of "backwards compatibility," they are probably the two "most similar" editions.  2e and 3e are pretty much the same edition (unless you have a favorite) and the same can be said of 4 and 5.  I mean, while _any_ character from any edition and any source book from any edition work remarkably well with each other, those two pairs have remarkably little difference between them.

[Lord Liaden]

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The reality is that, with D&D leading the charge, the gaming industry moved from "new edition tweaks old rules" to "new edition is an all-new game".  Hero never really bought in to that.  Which is great for those of us who love Hero, but has been less great for those trying to make a living writing and selling Hero.

 

Well, Hero Games did try something like that with Fuzion. Whatever one might think of the merits of that system, the existing Hero System fandom backlash put the kibosh on that project. Then Steve Long swooped in with Hero 5E, and the rest is history.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

My own Hero games continue to be based on Fifth Edition, with an infusion of elements from Fourth. Fifth hit my personal sweet spot in terms of rule comprehensiveness, but I just plain like the way Fourth does some things better. I won't deny that familiarity and comfort have a lot to do with my preference; but the very high degree of compatibility between those two editions, and the metric buttload of resources published for both, give me a vast diverse array of material I can draw from.

 

I think part of the reality is that the D&D owners were prepared to alienate the established fanbase (or at least some of it) if the new sales outweaighed the lost sales - and novelty brings in pretty significant sales.  They were willing, for example, to make 4e a very different game from 3e, which appealed to gamers of different styles.  The risk, which materialized, is driving existing customers to a system that was closer to what they liked, hence Pathfinder.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I keep seeing that criticism repeated, and I have to respectfully strongly disagree. I've read many published 6E character write-ups where those Characteristics differed noticeably, even substantially, from the calculations in previous editions. Let me take as one example Valak the World-Ravager, who first appeared for 5E in Champions Universe: News Of The World, and for 6E in Champions Villains Volume Three: Solo Villains. On his character sheet for both editions Valak's DEX is 21 and EGO is 26.

 

5E: OCV: 7, DCV: 7, ECV: 9

6E: OCV: 9, DCV: 8, OMCV: 3, DMCV: 10

 

So when you read the concept of Valak - not his stats, but his story - do you think "here's a guy who should have a DEX at Olympic Gymnast levels - the top of normal human range"?  If not, I suggest keeping a 21 DEX was lazy reverse compatibility, or just lazy cut & paste character updates.  EGO was less of an issue as strong willed tended to mean high EGO (a mentalist with self-esteem issues aside).

 

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Well, Hero Games did try something like that with Fuzion. Whatever one might think of the merits of that system, the existing Hero System fandom backlash put the kibosh on that project. Then Steve Long swooped in with Hero 5E, and the rest is history.

 

Yup - but if Fuzion had offended 100% of Hero gamers of the day, and attracted 10% of the D&Ders, how successful would it be?  The lost sales from unhappy grognards need to be (more than) replaced by the new sales.  There is definite risk in major change.  But some pushback on this thread is, I think, "I do not want to buy the same books with a bit of fine tuning so we can call it a new edition".  If there were significant changes for the better (and I don't know what they would be), then getting new rules and characters in this brand-new system might have more appeal.

[Lord Liaden]

Ooh, I haven't engaged in a system debate in a while. 😎

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So when you read the concept of Valak - not his stats, but his story - do you think "here's a guy who should have a DEX at Olympic Gymnast levels - the top of normal human range"?  If not, I suggest keeping a 21 DEX was lazy reverse compatibility, or just lazy cut & paste character updates.  EGO was less of an issue as strong willed tended to mean high EGO (a mentalist with self-esteem issues aside).

 

I believe there are three factors to consider here. First, Champions publications over decades have established a range of Dexterity scores which keep characters competitive with each other, which still applies as far as order of action goes. Changing that significantly for one as a matter of design principle would mean changing them for all, shifting the paradigm away from what the player base is used to. Personally I don't consider it laziness to avoid unnecessary extra work that might not be welcomed by the players anyway.

 

Second, Champions source books have established the maximum possible human Dexterity, beyond which is "superhuman" and requires some extraordinary justification, at 30. The Characteristic Maxima standard, in games where it's applied, was never the most a human could achieve; it just required a higher expenditure of Character Points to get above 20 DEX.

 

Third, Olympic gymnasts are not overall Dexterity monsters. They don't necessarily have very high reaction speeds, or are naturally good with any manual tasks. Gymnasts train intensively in a specialized set of skills. Of course being naturally agile helps tremendously, but that doesn't make them the gold standard in DEX, or automatically translate to all the benefits that Characteristic grants in Hero System.

 

(All of the above is IMO, of course. YMM reasonably V.)

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Yup - but if Fuzion had offended 100% of Hero gamers of the day, and attracted 10% of the D&Ders, how successful would it be?  The lost sales from unhappy grognards need to be (more than) replaced by the new sales.  There is definite risk in major change.  But some pushback on this thread is, I think, "I do not want to buy the same books with a bit of fine tuning so we can call it a new edition".  If there were significant changes for the better (and I don't know what they would be), then getting new rules and characters in this brand-new system might have more appeal.

 

I'm sure you recognize that attracting 10% of the D&Ders is a huge "if". Any major change to the core rules would be a giant gamble, since gaining new players is far from certain, while alienating the existing player base is all but certain. Particularly now that the resources Hero Games have to throw at such a project are very limited. And it's not as simple as making the system more like a more popular one such as D&D, since that invites a player response of, "Why should I change to a system resembling what I play now, when I'm already comfortable with what I play now?"

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't want a new edition for selfish reasons: I'd have to rewrite all my books and it takes long enough to write them to begin with.  But were there to be a new edition, there are certainly some things that need examining, such as the cost and structure for Damage Negation and the cost for the characteristics.