Simon

If what you're looking to do is to have your armor automatically make any attack against it be "standard effect", I would never allow it (personally).

You're looking to change the nature of the attack itself. If you want to do that, you shouldn't do it with armor, you should do it (most likely) with an odd sort of Transform Damage Shield, or some such.

Armor acts against the damage that hits it. Standard Effect simply "standardizes" the damage of an attack, removing the random component. The two should not be combined.

To what purpose?

Standard Effect doesn't mean that that much damage gets through the target's defenses....it simply means that, rather than a random roll of the dice to determine the strength of the attack, the attack does a fixed amount of damage each time (slightly less than the average roll of the equivalent number of dice).

I don't take this one often (so far, I've only worked it onto one character that I play), but it is by far my favorite:

"Firmly believes XXX to be his sidekick" (replace XXX with one of the other PCs).

Much, much fun to play.....especially when you pick some stuffy or grumpy super as your patsy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Challenge to the staff of hero games

Originally posted by Agent X

Hey, if you want it in a hurry. I'll just buy my stats up real high, buy every sense, every defense, every movement with mega-scale options, and I'll buy a +2 variable advantage on strength.

I wouldn't worry too much about him....he'd still have to deal with me (CKC pg 141). Before he knew it, his post total (and, therefore, character points) would be dropped to 2 with some simple hacking.

A few "alterations" to the Department of Defense and FBI systems and he'd no longer be a concern...

;-)

He's not leaving it "fuzzy".

There is no such thing as fractional SPD for anything except for buying up your SPD to the next level as a Characteristic.

If you have a 27 DEX character and do nothing with his SPD (leaving him at a 3 SPD), when he is hit by a Drain, the Drain needs to do 10 points of affect to the character before he loses a point of SPD.

Likewise, if you hit that character with an Aid, the Aid needs to do 10 points of affect to the character before he gains a point of SPD.

Well there you go.

I've apparently been playing it wrong for quite some time (on multiple levels). Though, thankfully, this has only come up rarely (extremely rarely).

Steve -

A question recently came up in the Hero System Discussion board that got me wondering:

If a character has, say, a 27 DEX and does not buy up his SPD (or sell it off), does the "fractional SPD" portion of his base SPD come into play against Drains and the like?

To (perhaps) be a bit clearer in what I'm asking:

A character with a 27 DEX has a 3.7 base SPD. He can buy it up to a 4 SPD for 3 points or he can leave it at a 3 SPD for 0 points. Let's say he remains at a 3 SPD.

This character is now hit by a Drain against his SPD. The Drain does 6 points of effect. Does this reduce him to a 2 SPD (3 - .6 = 2.4 which rounds down to 2) or does he remain at a 3 SPD, with the Drain acting against the "fractional SPD" portion of his base SPD (3.7 - .6 = 3.1 which rounds down to 3)?

If you want the official answer on this, it's "Yes, DEX with NFC still affects combat values". I asked Steve the same thing when I was making HD.

Is there a question in there?

You're absolutely correct, to my knowledge.....though, admittedly, my main area of expertise right now is in the creation rules and I may be a bit rusty on the actual game-time rules like this one.

My understanding of it is exactly as you state, however: fractional SPD, if present (not a common thing, but it happens) is of use against Drains and the like.

Originally posted by JmOz

Well one last detail, I think it should be pointed out that my original post, which was a heck of alot harsher, was deleted with in two minutes of posting, I was still shaking with rage when i wrote the replacement post, however realising that I took it more perswonal than I should does not always eliminate the emotions behind it...For this I am square with Dan, IOW I don't hold it against him, and considering how he behaves at times if he chooses to hold it against me, well the word Hippocrit comes to mind.

Also, just to elaborate on this a little bit:

When someone gets offensive or agressive with me in a post, I get offensive/agressive right back. Often more so than the original offense. I make no apologies for this. If you don't like it, then don't get offensive/agressive with me.

However, I tend to not "hold grudges" at all. If said offender posts again and is acting nicely, I respond in kind.

If you'd like an example of this, just take a look in the HD forums....two of the main "issue threads" that I've had going for the past couple of days are by Melessqr and Kristopher. Both of them have been acting just fine....so I have been treating them in kind (or at least, I've been trying to).

Originally posted by JmOz

Well one last detail, I think it should be pointed out that my original post, which was a heck of alot harsher, was deleted with in two minutes of posting, I was still shaking with rage when i wrote the replacement post, however realising that I took it more perswonal than I should does not always eliminate the emotions behind it...For this I am square with Dan, IOW I don't hold it against him, and considering how he behaves at times if he chooses to hold it against me, well the word Hippocrit comes to mind.

Errr...when in any of this have I been holding anything against you?

Re: Q

Originally posted by schir1964

Just here to disperse trivia information.

 

 

 

JmOz, I understand why you thought he implied deception on your part, since the root word does imply deception at some level. However, based on what he has said, it would seem he doesn't realized that this word does actually imply deception when used in the form of "Sophistry". The other derivative forms of this word do not mention the word deception in thier definitions, so he could easily have overlooked this fact.

 

It's also possible that the dictionary used was saving space and not elaborating on the definitions of the words and thier root meaning. Either way, he's clarified what he meant even if the word he used implies additional meaning.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Actually, to continue beating a dead horse, here is the progression of that part of the conversation:

Me:

The argument that you and JmOz keep trying to make is a sophist argument of semantics, which has no bearing on the situation as (as I have stated many, many times) it will not change the way I act or the way I interact with people one iota.

Here I use the term "sophist argument". Since you appear to prefer Webster's, we'll use their definitions:

1. capitalized: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the 5th century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
2. Philosopher, thinker
3. a captious or fallacious reasoner

Now...I didn't capitalize the word, so I'm not calling JmOa an ancient Greek teacher in this statement. Based on the context, it is also clear that I'm probably not calling him a philosopher/thinker (no offense, it just doesn't fit in the context of the statement). Which leaves the third definition: "a captious or fallacious reasoner".

Given the statements I made later, this is a justified statement.

Now...the statement that I made that apparently really set JmOz off was this one:

Me:

You can resent the accusations of presenting a sophistic argument all you want. I state that you are attempting to use sophistry to prove your point because you persist in basing your arguments over assumptions that you have made about my role and my responsibilities. I do not share those assumptions, yet you state them as if they were fact and shared by all on the boards. As these are the basis for your argument, your argument boils down to sophistry.

Now, here I use several variations of the word. Let's start with "sophistic" (I'll continue to use Webster's):

1. of or relating to sophists, sophistry, or the ancient Sophists
2. plausible but fallacious

Again, I think it's clear that I'm not talking about ancient Greece, so we go with the second definition: plausible but fallacious.

This means that his argument makes sense (it's plausible) but is based on incorrect assumptions and is, therefore, incorrect or false (fallacious).

Now, the other variation on the word that I use is "sophistry". We'll turn back to Webster's yet again:

1. subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
2. sophism

Following "sophism" we get:

1. an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid

In my mind, given my use of the word previously and the general gist of my statements, it should be clear that I am not saying that JmOz was intentionally trying to deceive. When he gave indication that he took it that way, I quickly posted statements to the contrary.

Basically, you have three forms of the word...two of those forms are very clear in their meaning, the third can have "subtle" differences in meaning within the context that it is used. JmOz chose (apparently) to take what he viewed to be the most negative meaning, while I had intended nothing of the sort (and said as much).

I think we can move along now.....the language lesson is complete.

It was more an issue of it being confusing for most users (who wouldn't use/have need of the feature) to program it in directly.....placing the functionality on the Naked Modifier ability allows people that need the functionality to have access to it, while keeping the normal creation/application of Modifiers "clean" for the users that don't need it. It also keeps the display of the "Limited Advantage" clear (it's obvious in the above example that the Increased END applies to the Armor Piercing).

Originally posted by Ndreare

I logged there once but after being gone for a couple days forgot my password and so I got frustrated and never returned.

Hehehe...all you need to do is email me with your user name (or at least the email address that you setup the account under) and I'll send you the login info.

Or you can create a new login....up to you

Re: Hero Central ?

Originally posted by Gary Ciaramella

Has anyone else been unable to get to the Hero Central site for the past 3 or 4 days?

Working fine for me. Make sure your brower's cache is cleared and give it a shot.

The site has not had any downtime for the past week or so, so if you're having problems, they're occuring somewhere between your browser and the server....if clearing your cache doesn't help, we'll have to get a little technical and see what we can find

Originally posted by JmOz

Thank you for deleting the quote (I assume you quoted my original message)

 

Like I said I have a personal issue with being accused of in anyway of being deceitful (And say what you will that is a form of deceit), I realise I can be overly sensitive, thus the reason for deleting the message

 

Consider it just a Psy lim or an enraged, that I failed the roll for.

I think that's where the misconception lies: I never accused you of being deceitful or of trying to deceive.

By saying that your argument was sophistic, I was saying that you were basing your argument on assumptions which I find to be incorrect. The argument, therefore, breaks down into the endless cycled of "are to" ... "are not" that we have been engaged in for the past year or so.

Also, before we go down another definition fiasco:

Fallacious (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language):

Originally posted by JmOz

deleted per JmOz's intentions in original post

Errr...dude, I think you're reading things in that don't exist.

I never said you were being deceitful, I said that you were being misleading because of the basis of your arguments.

Here's the definition of sophistry from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

In a nutshell, that is exactly what I think of your arguments. They are completely plausible, so long as I buy into your assumptions as to my role. Given that I do not buy into those assumptions, they are fallacious arguments.

This is not calling you a liar, and it is not saying that you are intentionally deceiving. Sophistry is not a bad word.

Some of the greatest thinkers in history were sophists (see Ancient Greek philosophy for some of the best examples of sophistry every put down). It was an intellectual exercise for them.

There's nothing wrong with it and no impuning of your character is intended. I just view your arguments to be "plausible but fallacious".

Originally posted by JmOz

I resent that comment.

 

Sophist BTW for all who do not know means "One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation"

 

Dan, what I am trying to say is that you do represent Hero Games, more than most. However for the record I consider myself and everyone on this board a representitive, that is why I do my level best to treat people with kindness and politness no matter how much of a jerk they behave like. It is also why I hold you to a higher standard, you are a contractor for Hero Games, you have Steve Long's ear on some things, and as you are a administrator on this board it is not unreasonable to hold you to such a standard

You are welcome to hold me to whatever standard you want....it hasn't changed the way I act, and (as you are not the judge of me) it will continue to have no bearing on my actions.

You can resent the accusations of presenting a sophistic argument all you want. I state that you are attempting to use sophistry to prove your point because you persist in basing your arguments over assumptions that you have made about my role and my responsibilities. I do not share those assumptions, yet you state them as if they were fact and shared by all on the boards. As these are the basis for your argument, your argument boils down to sophistry.

I am content with my own actions and will continue to respond to people the way I see fit.

Originally posted by Kristopher

None of which means I'm going to refrain from pointing out things that are screwed up.

I have never stated that you should do otherwise. There's plenty of things that I would change about the system if I were in charge of the rules (many are quite thankful that I have no input on that)....just talk to me about Charges or RSR one day.

However, this whole "debate" was not about opinions of the rules. This whole mess started because I stated that HD was following the rules of the system and you and Melessqr felt otherwise.

You are welcome to disagree with the rules (I've said this several times). Several ways to work around this particular rule within HD have been pointed out. You can use any of them that you wish, or come up with others on your own.

Originally posted by Kristopher

Simon...you're missing the point about customer service. You can argue all you want that you're not a "customer service representative," and it won't change anything. Not because you're wrong on that point, but because it's entirely irrelevent to the real point.

 

Anyone who interacts with the customers is providing customer service. Every time you take a call, post to a message board, respond to an email, or whatever, you're doing customer service work. Yes, you're a contractor, and technically aren't part of DOJ. So what?

 

My job title says nothing about customer service, and I'm definately _not_ a CSR. So what? My interaction with the public, with customers, still has an impact on the company I work for. That wouldn't change if I were a temp, a contractor, or an owner of the business.

 

If you think you're not "doing" customer service, and that you're not a representative of DOJ, because your title isn't Customer Service Representative, then, well, you're wrong.

By that logic, you are in customer service for Hero Games as well (as is Melessqr and everyone else that posts to these boards) and are just as responsible for the way you come across.

I fulfill a technical support rule for HD. Why? Because I continue to love the product, love the system, and want to help folks out.

I also answer rules questions on these boards. Why? Because I love the system and have a very deep understanding of the character creation rules as a result of my work on HD and enjoy sharing that with others who are in need of help when I am able.

Neither of these make me a customer support rep anymore than they do you.

The argument that you and JmOz keep trying to make is a sophist argument of semantics, which has no bearing on the situation as (as I have stated many, many times) it will not change the way I act or the way I interact with people one iota.

A segment is 1 second long.

A Turn is 12 seconds (being comprised of 12 segments)

Originally posted by melessqr

The Logo under your name, and administrative abilities make you, defacto, a representative of the company. I would never have anyone with the people skill you have representing my company.

 

If you want to be Just Another Poster, then get rid of your logo and sacrifice your administrative access. Otherwise, deal with being a representative of the company and develope a little decorum.

 

Melessqr

The logo under my name is the logo for Hero Designer, an application that I wrote. I use the logo with the permission of Hero Games. It does not make me a part of Hero Games.

I have stated often that I am not a part of Hero Games; I am a contractor who has been hired in to do various programming projects for Hero Games.

Among those projects are such things as writing some portions of this website (hence the administrative access to these boards), writing Hero Designer, and others.

If you choose to take this as my being a representative of Hero Games, despite my statements to the contrary, that's your own lookout. Have at it. But it won't change the way I behave, the logo that I use, or the access that I have on my own server.

Originally posted by melessqr

I'd like to see the ability to buy and sell off fractional points of SPD, Please.

 

Melessqr

Easy: use a Custom Power.

Originally posted by JmOz

No but you answer questions about it

 

Sorry if you don't like it but that means you are doing customer service (The act of supporting your program to the public means you are doing customer service, you can't seperate them)

 

This sounded better in my head than it does in written word, as that may be I think my point is clear, and now I am leaving this thread. I will read it so I am not misinterpred or to answer direct questions, but I know you can be stuborn on this point (I feel it is a state of denial actualy) so will not continue trying to make you see the truth.

My answering questions on the software means that I am performing some of the same functions that a customer service representative would perform. This is true (no argument here). But it does not mean that I am in customer service.

In the same way that you are not in customer service for Hero Games. You have answered many questions for folks on these boards. You've answered rules questions, you've even answered some questions on HD in the past.

This doesn't mean you are Hero Games' customer service department. It means you are a user of the system who is fairly knowledgable and who has opted to help folks out.

I am in the same role: I am a user of the system. I am very knowledgable on some areas of the system and am extremely knowledgable on HD. So I answer questions on them.

Performing some of the same roles as a customer service representative does not make one a customer service representative.

Originally posted by Monolith

Dan, I like Hero Designer. I must like it as I have written several hundred characters, and package deals, and templates for it. There are only 3 things I do not like about the software:

 

#1: It is slow on my computer. For some reason my computer configuration has never liked Java. It takes me a long time to load characters, it takes me a long to to switch characters, and it even takes me a long time to make characters. I am sure I could have done the character packs in half the time if I were not always having to open and close the program in the middle of larger characters. And I do not have a small computer system.

 

#2: It does not take into account all the rules from the FAQ and many "official" campaign specific variables that have been added for the various setting books. I think the official CharGen software should have the ability to make characters for the official settings. While version 2 is better at that than version 1 is, it still leaves much out, IMO.

 

#3: It is not easily customizable. I would imagine fully 75% of the people who use the CharGen software use it with house rules and in other less book legal ways. The fact that everything unusual needs to be done with a Custom Power/Skill etc. is irksome and clunky. Such a great piece of software should not need to have 5-6 clunky entries per character, IMO. So while having a rules-legal software is great, it is really not what most of the buyers want from a CharGen, IMO.

 

I have no problem supporting Hero Games here. I want the company to succeed, it is just difficult at times to want one thing and to have to realize that this is all you will get.

1: v2 should help that substantially. I've spent a fair bit of time re-writing the underlying engine and optimizing things for large characters, multiple characters, and switching between characters.

2: If you point out the areas where HD does not implement rules, I'll either get them added in, or let you know why they aren't in. There are some instances where Steve has told me not to put some items in as he does not want to enforce them that strongly yet.....there are others where it's not so much a rule as a potential workaround that he's proposed for someone and he would rather not include it in the form of a hard rule in the software....I'll let you know when those come up.

3: A lot of the idea behind the campaign rules section in v2 is meant to address this. The campaign rules are currently able to change a fair number of things in the system (turning on and off various rules, setting levels, etc.). As time goes on, I'm sure that I will be adding to the list of items in the campaign rules....that's just a matter of folks posting what they'd like to see.

I'd prefer it if you kept any specific suggestions for HD to the HD forums, as I'm likely to lose track of them here....