bwdemon

Re: Other Odd Twists

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast Nothing in your first section has any bearing on a game mechanics argument. Each roll is independent, actions determining whether that roll will or will not be attempted are meaningless in the context of this thread. I'm discussing whether the mechanic makes sense in HERO and whether the wind is blowing from the west at 6pm on a Tuesday has nothing to do with the mechanic in question. As I said before (and can show you if you really want to see it), anyone can reliably plot the potential outcomes of a killing attack without significant effort. Therefore, you can "gamble" on results without any more effort than you would for normal damage. The numbers don't plot out sensibly, given the rest of the HERO SYstem, but they are easily determinable. When dice are rolled in HERO for action resolution, they adhere to the bell curve - except for killing attacks. Even Luck and Unluck follow the bell curve (count the sixes/ones, which increase or decrease in probability depending on how many dice of each are involved). If an action/ability requires no roll, then there is no mechanism for resolution - it always succeeds. Still, the general power of many of these items is measured based on other items' adherence to the bell curve (e.g. PD & ED v. Normal Damage). Why does killing damage get to avoid the reasonable constraints of the system? At one point, prior to serious consideration about the impact of the mechanic chosen, it was another mechanic included in the game just to have another mechanic to set it apart from standard damage. Now it is a legacy item of no real value to the game outside of nostalgia.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks? If a club causes 3d6N and a sword causes 2d6N + 2d6B, then the two are sufficiently different in operation and each has their advantages. Again, whether the "BODY Only" dice are useful in a min/max context depends on whether you're working strictly at maximum AP for the given campaign.

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast The problem comes about from poor use of the word uncertainty. True uncertainty cannot be expressed in terms of probability. Risk is what would otherwise be called uncertainty, but can be expressed in terms of probability. It appears that you're attempting to view each roll of the dice as something that is dependent on previous rolls and that will influence subsequent rolls. Or, at least, it looks like you're attempting to say that stochastic modeling would do so. However, each roll is fully independent of all others and to be treated as such. Probability will always be measurable for each roll of a killing attack, so true uncertainty will never come into play. So we're limited to discussions of risk. And, getting back to the thread topic, one problem with the killing damage mechanic is that is goes against the grain of the system. Everything else in HERO is modeled off of the bell curve. Only killing attacks deviate from this. In doing so, they allow for aberrant results in the otherwise clean operation of the system.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast You're sure you want to go the "secret and technical definition" route with your argument? Let's talk stochastics... Risk is just measurable uncertainty. The probability of each result from a killing attacks is fully measurable. This puts the object of argument firmly in the risk category. The term uncertainty should only be used where the probabilities are not measurable.

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast Risk is the probability of failure. Where there is risk, there is uncertainty. Where there is no risk, there is no uncertainty. Barring cheating, nobody can be certain of the outcome on any given roll, so risk exists in every roll. Every roll is independent from those that came before and will come after (a person rolling the dice is never "due"). Probability just expresses the theoretical likelihood of any given result, it is not a mandate. Still, the bell curve is the foundation of HERO. Killing damage bucks the system and introduces an aberrant mechanic to what would otherwise be a coherent system. You appearing to be viewing this in terms of the damage being separated into two rolls (BODY & STUN Lotto) and trying to apply the nebulous distinction between risk and uncertainty to the two. You're focusing too much on the STUN Lotto (focusing on the one die and how it interprets the BODY roll) and not on the whole picture (a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem). It doesn't matter whether I roll the STUN Multiplier die before, during, or after the time when I roll the Killing dice. The Killing dice and STUN Multiplier die are interpreted together to get the STUN total. It is possible to express both killing damage and normal damage in terms of probability. Assuming 2d6K, there is a 10.72% probability of causing greater than 36 STUN (maximum for a 6d6N attack). This pairs with a 9.72% probability of causing less than 6 STUN (minimum for a 6d6N attack). Considering that the former extends damage up to 60 (167% of 6d6N maximum), while the latter drops down to 2 (33% of 6d6N minimum), the tradeoff is more than worthwhile. For a game designed around the bell curve, the distribution is nothing like anything else in the system. It starts off with a steep climb, peaks for a bit at a result of 8 (6.47%) and then begins a wild roller coaster of aberrant results. The last spike hits at 40 STUN (4.70%), before jittering along between 0.00% and 1.85% until the end at 60 (0.46%). Where everything else in HERO conforms to the bell curve, killing damage bucks the trend - introducing an unnecessary complication with broken results. Also, It is impossible to cause STUN amounts of {13,17,19,23,26,29,31,34,37-39,41-43,46,47,49,51-54,56-59} with the 2d6K attack (25 out of the 59 numbers ranging from 2 to 60 - 42.4% of the range). If you stick to the range of 6d6N damage, then 8 of the 31 possible results - 25.8% of the range - are missing. Gaps aren't good. If HERO wasn't based on the bell curve and probability meant nothing to conflict resolution, then the killing mechanic would be just another meaningless way to have fun with dice. Instead, it represents an aberration in the system that can (and nearly always is) used as an exploit. The game would be far better off without it.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Re: Evaluating The Hero System (Or Any Game System) For me, it comes down to these three things... 1. Balance: 1pt of X = 1pt of Y in effectiveness 2. Accessibility: almost a catch-all, this includes time until playable, time until mastered, and absence of needless complications 3. Flexibility: should be able to handle a wide variety of genres and capabilities

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks? Even viewed in the vacuum of the multipower slot cost, it'll cost half as much as the 12d6 attack (3pts "U" or 6pts "M" vs. 6pts "U" or 12pts "M"). Like every other power that goes into a multipower, it has to abide by the restrictions in place on the multipower framework. Your problem is more with how the framework operates than with the powers' costs.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks? Both! 5pts of EB is equal to 5pts of EB "BODY Only" so it isn't a problem. That's the point of the limitation. 12d6 of X need not be equal to 12d6 of Y, because of different costs. In this case, 12d6 "Body Only" (30pts) has to match 6d6 Normal (30pts) in effect. On average, that's 12 BODY vs. 6 BODY and 21 STUN and, I think, a pretty fair balance.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks? I wouldn't use or recommend this method. All I have to say is that every character has to be appropriate for the game they play in. If Captain Bulletproof fits the game with high defenses, hardened defenses, and damage reduction, then by all means go with it. If the character ends up with defenses that exceed the parameters of the game, then the points will have to go elsewhere (might I recommend Missile Deflection?). As for me, I outright ban Damage Reduction except in very specific and limited circumstances (e.g. representing immunity to your own SFX). I impose stronger restrictions on defenses than on offense (I want successful attacks to do damage) and I temper it all with an eye toward the character's SPD and CV (probability-magnitude-rate measurement). I'm very focused on balance, though, while others let their players do whatever they can fit in, under, or around the rules.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks? Killing attacks fall into the "not good" set of complications. Killing attacks include a different damage mechanic, a smaller dice poll (bad for the reasons discussed above), a multiplier (compounds the small pool problem), an extra knockback die, and rules on resistant defense that state that rDEF resists BODY and normal DEF resists STUN, unless you have no rDEF, in which case your rDEF resists STUN (which is to say, not at all). In other words, killing damage is not a good thing that helps the game become more accessible to players and maintain balance. The entire mess could be removed and the game would only be better for it. The option lost? None. You can still model all of the attacks you want, with lethality altered through "STUN Only" and "BODY Only" dice. I've never had anyone complain about too many dice being thrown (unless it came from me when my PC was hit by some mean old NPC's attack...). Plus, the small pool is one of the problems with the Killing mechanic. Still, if you're hearing it, the "fistful of dice" complaint can be solved in several ways. One of the easiest is just going with lower AP caps. Like DEX & SPD, damage is subject to arbitrary escalation. Why do we have bigger attacks? Because that's what the GM & PCs decided on an the source material puts 23/5/12d6 as the standard. Revise to a 15/3/8d6 standard and you drop out a bunch of extra dice. This allows you to drop defenses and either get a LOT more depth and versatility out of your characters or reduce disadvantages so characters aren't quite so burdened.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks? I don't think any system should boil down quite so completely as you're describing above. Nor does the removal of a few absolutely unnecessary complications necessitate the removal of complications that serve the game well. You're using a slippery slope argument, but putting a cliff a few feet off the starting point. Remove the unhelpful complications. Add and tweak the helpful complications as needed to make the game better. What it comes down to is whether the game is more accessible and balanced after the changes. I want the game to be easy to play for new and old players. I want the game to be balanced, such that 5pts of X isn't better than 5pts of Y at the same thing. Right now, it isn't accessible and it isn't balanced. Removal of killing damage is a good start to fixing the problem.

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast Forgive the edit, but I wanted to keep the quote block smallish. All dice represent uncertainty and risk. It doesn't matter whether it's a KA or an EB. You could roll 12 STUN and 0 BODY on a 12d6 attack. You could roll 72 STUN and 24 BODY on a 12d6 attack. Anything in between is also a possibility and that represents a broad range of possibility plotted out along a standard bell curve. Due to the quantity of dice involved, this creates a very smooth curve with tiny steps between each result. The problem is that the uncertainty in KAs makes much larger leaps between each step. You begin with much fewer dice, which is a problem in itself. Outlier results are more likely to occur (24 on 4d6 is more likely than 72 on 12d6). Then you have another die that multiplies that result. When you multiply something that already has a problem, that problem is also multiplied. Disliking KAs has nothing to do with being risk averse. It has to do with consolidating system mechanics and not compounding problems through multiplication.

Re: Skill System House Rules - Comments? I'd honestly like to see something along the lines of +1/1pt for any skill and a 5 + CHA/3 base. The average person, with no training or otherwise-enhanced capabilities, would have an 8- to do something based off of a characteristic. Some skills require training to use (can't make a roll until you've put in at least 1pt) and others don't. This changes one problem of HERO where a 13 INT is the same as a 17 INT for mechanical purposes. Yes, an 11 INT is the same as a 13 INT under this system, but the gap is much smaller (a good thing). It's simple and not a significant deviation from the current system. As for teaching new players how to hit in combat, why not just say (11 + OCV - DCV)? That's always worked fine for me. If they need a little more explanation, then compare it to blackjack - you don't want to go over.

Re: Three Heroes to Save the Universe My character (Alex Vassilikos, MD) would fill the mentalist role. He isn't on the same level as a Menton or Mentalla, but he's the best I've got. 1. Dr. Destroyer: He's smart, incredibly powerful, and he has a huge stake in maintaining the universe (he wants at least a part of it someday). Yes, he's a villain, but I think he'd step up for this. He also provides a "when will he turn on us?" feeling for the others. 2. Quasar: Leader of UNITY and very powerful in his own right, I like this character as perhaps the worst possible hero to team up with Dr. Destroyer. Their working together help impress how important the task is and keeps tension high at all times. 3. Rashindar: He's here to fill the role of the mystic, but could easily be replaced by a more powerful mystic. I don't have Ultimate Mystic, so I haven't found a more suitable replacement.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions The mission of the New Avengers is supposedly to capture the supercriminals who escaped during the prison break, but I think that may fall into the background. I expect the comic to cover underground railroad and rallying point stories for anti-registration superheroes. I also expect them to come into conflict with the Mighty Avengers on a (very) regular basis. One of the major points of conflict will likely be the Young Avengers. While this contains some "shades of grey" elements, it is not necessarily that dark and certainly isn't street level.

Re: Need a Name for a Temporal Prison

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Is it a crime to act in violation of the SHRA? If I were to throw on a mask and start beating up or shooting criminals today, I would violate a host of laws. This isn't much different. I don't get to play soldier or policeman without going throught he proper channels, why should the superheroes get to? Assuming you have powers and don't run around the streets in spandex fighting people, then you aren't going to be found and you aren't going to have trouble. The super-intelligent doctor who devotes his time to curing diseases or working in a hospital isn't going to have trouble. Nobody will likely even notice the doctor is superhumanly intelligent - the doctor might not even know. Only those who take it upon themselves to be super-police (or super-criminals) have problems under the SHRA. Warren already has a public ID, so he's already past the first hurdle of the SHRA. His powers are pretty well known, which covers another. We can also throw him in a cell, which makes his powers useless, so we don't need to bother with cutting off his wings. Plus, if it really came down to removal, they could always hit him with the Neutralizer. You're taking the examples to illogical and unnecessary extremes. If we do ever see a panel where SHIELD agents are hacking off Warren's wings with machetes or lobotomizing super-intelligent villains, then I'll change my views appropriately. Until then, it just doesn't seem plausible, given the other options available.

Re: Regrettable Disads PROBLEM: In one campaign, two characters had Hunted by VIPER, 14- as a disadvantage (both had reformed villain backgrounds). The GM took the Hunted rules strictly, which made VIPER comically prominent in the game. SOLUTION: After taking the fight to and cleaning out the local Nest, the GM allowed them to buy it down to 8-. They were still common, but they weren't popping out of the woodwork. SUGGESTION: Be wary of more than one character have any particular Hunted unless you want them to be a major player in the game. Be extremely wary if it's anything over 8-.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions And your definition of mutilate appears to differ significantly from my own, as we discussed above. Removal of powers is not, to me, mutilation. In the case of intelligence-based villains no form of mutilation is necessary. Keep them thoroughly sedated and away from anything more complicated than a Fisher-Price workbench and you've solved the problem. We do that with plenty of criminals (and non-criminals) now.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions If the arms are destroyed and he doesn't have the means to create new arms (e.g. locked away in a nice, deep, padded cell), then it isn't an issue. If you just lock them up like a trophy or let him have access to materials he could use to make new arms, then that's the fault of whoever made those mistakes. If you're worried about him having a spare set, then keep him sedated so he can't control them. Now if you're talking about Ultimate Doc Ock (control over metal), then you run into a different problem. Sedation and incarceration become the more viable solutions. I don't know if he has any distance restrictions on his power, but he should be kept as far away from metals as possible. For either, you're talking about a person who has murdered multiple times and remains a danger to others every minute he is awake. The death penalty would be an option for someone like him. All of these are realistically viable, but not necessarily viable for the comics. You're talking about a major villain and, barring a very rare occurrence, major villains get to escape and do Bad Things at least once every 2-3 years. No system designed can defeat the writer. I don't know if it necessarily should, either. Since we're talking comics, why not have a powerful telepath go to work on him so he can't create a new set of arms. Use fear, hate, guilt, or some other powerful emotion to ensure he doesn't want to. Erase memories to ensure he doesn't know exactly how to. Break or reroute the mental linkages that allow him to put those thoughts together (i.e. thoughts of arms or tentacles go anywhere but to the idea of his "arms"). This puts him out of commission, gives us a few storylines to work with (e.g. ethics of mind-alteration, how far is SHIELD willing to go, etc.), and gives the writer methods to bring the villain back (e.g. conditioning wears down over time, another telepath "fixes" him, etc.).