Simon

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.

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).

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

Re: Q Actually, to continue beating a dead horse, here is the progression of that part of the conversation: Here I use the term "sophist argument". Since you appear to prefer Webster's, we'll use their definitions: 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 Philosopher, thinker 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: Now, here I use several variations of the word. Let's start with "sophistic" (I'll continue to use Webster's): of or relating to sophists, sophistry, or the ancient Sophists 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: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation sophism Following "sophism" we get: 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).

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 ? 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

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): Containing or based on a fallacy:

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: Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 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".

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.

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. 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)

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.

Easy: use a Custom Power.

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.

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....

I disagree. I post on these boards just like anybody else. Just because I wrote a product for Hero Games does not mean that the way I post or the way I act is suddenly changed. Regardless of what you think, I am not in customer service. Nor will I ever be, if I have my way.

As someone has stated, this whole mess played out over the course of several threads (this one and a pair in the HD forum). It started out in the HD forum with a question posted saying that HD was doing things wrong because it wouldn't allow the selloff of partial speed. I explained that the way HD was doing things was correct according to the rules of the system. This statement was questioned and quite some time was spent on this subject, starting with statements that it's not a rule, that FREd explicitly states that you can, etc. I pointed out the FAQ entry. Quite a bit of time was spent going over such concepts as "the FAQ entry is unclear" or "the FAQ is invalid because it's not in the printed book and should not be considered part of the rules" or "the FAQ entries are mutually contradictory" and so on. This went on for some time. There were even suggestions made (by both sides) for working around this issue in HD if you didn't want to follow that rule. More arguments and complaints followed these suggestions. Throughout this, there was the continued theme of questioning that this was a rule at all. I suggested that if they doubted my word that it was a rule, that they do what I had done many times: talk to Steve about it. This is where things got weird, as Melessqr stated that he had no doubt Steve would back up my statements and verify the rule.....apparently we were still stuck on "it's not explicitly stated in the rule book, so it doesn't exist". There was continued conversation from here, but very little of substance. Throughout all of this, others were chiming in with various ideas. Where those ideas contained errors in calculations (or misunderstandings in how multiple purchases of DEX affected SPD, or how experience expenditures figured in) I pointed out those errors and at least attempted to explain how things were intended to work, according to the rules. Why me? Because I have, arguably, one of the better understandings of the rules in this area due to my work on HD. I had to get it right very early on and have spent a LOT of time going over the rules with Steve, making sure that I understood exactly how things are supposed to work. I even talked to Steve during the course of this conversation, making sure that I still had things right and verifying the rules that I was posting. So....that's a rough summary of the three threads in question. Note: I have left out any mention of snide comments or insults back and forth and have tried to keep it as objective as possible. It's up to you to go through the threads and decide on what you feel of the tone. I am (thankfully) not in customer service. I am not paid to sit around and take abuse and return it with a smile. I have a great amount of respect for those that do....they've got an extremly difficult and thankless job. Many would (and have) argued that, despite my statements that I am not in customer service, that I am in such a role. I have yet to see any contract that I signed which places me in that role. I am a contractor, hired on by Hero Games to write a piece of software. That's all, nothing more. When someone comes at me with what I feel is an abusive attitude (note the phrasing here: what I feel), I throw it right back at them. Often harder than they do. Does this make me an ass? Probably. Truth is, I really don't care. I go home happy at the end of the day. If you decide that you don't want to purchase HD because I won't sit around and take abuse from people (or if you don't think that I took any abuse and I just went off on some poor, undeserving soul), that's fine. It's absolutely your perogative. I never wrote HD for the money. There is not a chance that I will ever make enough money off of it to justify the time that I've spent coding it. Even if I were to have taken in 100% of the price on all sales, this wouldn't be the case.....the market simply isn't big enough for that. This doesn't bother me in the slightest. I wrote HD because I love the Hero System. I wrote HD because I wanted to see a chargen that made character creation easy while also following all the myriad rules and regulations that are contained in the rule book, supplements, FAQ, etc. Such a beast has never existed for the Hero System. I am extremely gratified that other people seem to like HD and find it useful. I think that it's a great compliment. But I also realize that it's not for everyone. This is fine. If you decide that you don't want to purchase HD, by all means, don't buy it. If you don't want to purchase any product that is developed by someone who you feel is an ass, that's fine....don't purchase it. Neither your purchase or your lack thereof will change the way I deal with people. I am perfectly happy with the way I deal with people and have no desire to change it.

That should come as a shock to nobody. Will do!

Yup. So far we've established that the rule exists and has been stated clearly enough by Steve that even the likes of Melessqr and Kristopher have been forced to admit that it exists. We've also established that if they don't like the rule, they can ignore it....and not run the risk of the gaming police beating down their door in the middle of the night and taking all of their precious Hero stuff. We've also established several ways in which they can use Hero Designer while not following that rule and have the points work out correctly. As near as I can tell, Melessqr seems to be (a) pissed that anyone else would dare follow different rules than him (even Steve Long, who is obviously unfit to design a rules system and should bow before the glory of Melessqr's knowledge)...and ( trying to show just how big of an asshole he can be. Myself, I'm getting ready to take the money that I got from Melessqr's purchase of Hero Designer and go have a few beers on him. Thanks, Melessqr!

You may want to check out the free demo of HDv2....you may be surprised ;-) The demo version installer (available on the HD site) will need to be updated to 2.0.48 before you'll be able to run it, but the updates are coming less and less frequently as we steadily narrow in on a final version (I'm down to about one a week now....probably dropping off from there until December). There is a large amount of rules customization built into HDv2 in the way of Campaign Rules.....and the templates are far easier to modify and change for any other rules changes that you desire.

It's already been caught, and mentioned in the errata.