bwdemon

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? It was important enough to break the two apart and give them different costs and their own names. I don't think that was the best decision in the first place, but it's better than having someone call a cat a dog and stating that it's okay because, when you boil it down, they're both mammals and names aren't important anyway. For the record, my image of armor isn't necessarily tied to a focus, but it is interesting that you mentioned that... If a new player tells you that they're making a character with an invisible force field and you see that they've chosen Force Field with IPE to do this, do you explain to them that they should take Armor instead and then just call the armor a force field? To me, that makes the game look bad. It outright says that one power is better than another, so much so that you should ignore the name of the power altogether in pursuit of that last point. It admits imbalance and embraces it. That's not a good state of affairs. Which is why I would propose simplification.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? I don't know about you, but when I think "Armor" I get a pretty specific set of images in my mind. When I think "Force Field" I get another very specific set of images in mind. If you don't want to break it up into those images, then don't bother naming either. If it's just Defense Power Blue and Defense Power Green, then there is no need to name them at all. Since Defense Power Green sucks, you can go ahead and take it out of the game altogether without any problem. Once you've done that and realize that Defense Power Blue is the same as Defense Stat, you get rid of Defense Power Blue and you're where you should be. In other words, you should just have PD & ED with appropriate modifiers, draft SFX as necessary, and eliminate Armor and Force Field. This would be great, but HERO separated all this out into PD, ED, Damage Resistance, Armor, and Force Field. Defenses in the HERO system could be simplified and achieve greater balance, neither of which are bad things. Instead of looking at what they've always had and how it's always been structured, look at what is available and how everything could be simplified/balanced around it. 20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), SFX: Tough Skin 20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), SFX: Invisible Force Field 20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), SFX: Metal Skin 20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), SFX: Glowing Force Field 20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), Costs END (+1/2), SFX: Metal Skin 20 PD/20 ED, Resistant (+1/2), Visible (-1/4), Costs END (+1/2), SFX: Glowing Force Field The above are examples of how it should work. These are balanced (at least among themselves) and uncomplicated. Instead, we have PD, ED, Damage Resistance, Armor, and Force Field clogging up the works and Force Field is built on an entirely different (and inefficiently expensive) cost structure. Energy Blast is a blast of energy. That can be any type of energy, which makes it incredibly broad even without going into the superheroic variants. I'd rather it be called something like Ranged Attack or Blast, but Energy Blast is sufficiently wide open to allow for a lot of SFX.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? FF shouldn't be a rare power - or at least it shouldn't solely because Armor is available. Force Field should be used when players want the power to represent a force field. Armor should be used when players want a power to represent armor. Using another power just because it gives the same or better results at a cheaper price smacks of imbalance and conscienceless min/maxing. Slapping a differen't power's SFX on it doesn't make the problem go away.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Which would you consider efficiently priced: Force Field or Armor? I lean toward Force Field being efficiently priced. Armor (as itself or as PD & ED with Damage Resistance) is inefficiently low in price. Both PD & ED offer a huge benefit at a natural cost of 1:1 if non-resistant or 3:2 if resistant. If Armor is supposed to be a persistent Force Field, then the basic end-using Force Field should cost half of what Armor does. If you agree that Armor is inefficiently low in price, then Armor should cost 2:1. If you believe that Force Field is inefficiently overpriced, then drop Force Field to 1:2. What about the invisibility issue? There's the rub. How invisible is Armor? All senses? That's a +1 modifier for free! Just to sight? Still a +1/2 modifier. Make it visible source? You're down to +1/2 or +1/4, but free is free. Making Armor visible would make it inefficient compared to natural PD & ED with Damage Resistance. Maybe make all powers visible unless otherwise stated? That seems to clear it all up (Damage Resistance is a power, after all). So, the fix is to ignore the bit about Armor being invisible and to either double its base price or halve Force Field's base price. Right? Not quite... Then we look at PD & ED. Knowing that Armor should cost twice as much as Force Field and with Armor being equal to Damage Reduction and additional PD/ED, we run into that issue. You still have PD & ED being underpriced. Bump those up to 2:1. That takes Armor up to 3:1. Force Field becomes 3:2 and we're all set! Welcome to House Rule Hell

Re: Your occupation, please. Some of my more recent efforts... Bum Day trader Independently wealthy Professional hero (sponsored by government, corporation(s), secret organizations, and/or clients) Student

Re: A Thin Moral Line...? 1. Each player/reader should feel free to judge any character based on their own feelings about the character's actions. To some, the Punisher is as bad as the people he goes after. To others, he's a hero willing to take the necessary steps that other heroes won't. 2. Heroes and villains may be easiest to define by their opposition. Since most characters in all but the most black-and-white settings (which will be easy enough to answer anyway) will have some problems with both, look at the quantity on each side and qualities of its representatives. If the character is opposed by both good and bad persons/entities, then they probably fall into the misunderstood hero category. For example, vigilantes are generally considered heroic in comics, but have problems coming from both sides. 3. The motivation of any given person in their actions is important. Acting in the manner of "the ends justifying the means" is a pretty significant villainous attribute. A subset of this includes harming any number of innocent people "for their own good" or "for a greater good," regardless how "good" the result. Finally, you can always look at good old fashioned selfish behavior. Generally speaking, the more a character is acting on their own behalf, the less heroic the action.

Re: Best superhero game thread poll: Go Vote Best setting? Aberrant Best system (scope/balance)? Champions Best system (learning curve/ease of play)? M&M I couldn't place a focused vote in that poll if I had to...

Re: Getting Rid of Killing Attacks I've said it before, I'll say it again: just make it an AVLD (resistant defense) worth +1/4 or +1/2 and the problem of the poor KA mechanic goes away.

Re: What power sets do you like, but never play? Mentalist with a focus on telepathy (mind control, ego attack, etc.). They aren't my favorite or anything and I only really like them in the supers context, but I feel dirty bringing one to a game unless everyone is playing one. Unlike many of you, I have played the growing character and would happily do so again. My preferred concept combines growth and density increase (e.g. turning into a large, living statue) so the character can still get into most places without problem and just use density increase in tight areas. A straight "Growth" build carries aptial issues, but can be a lot of fun and allows for a range of power levels in your enemies (e.g. you can face really powerful threats so long as you have the space, but have problems with minor threats in tight confines)

Re: Why do we object to mechanics? Mechanic-wise, I like a system to reproduce results appropriate to the genre without any undue complication. Logical flow and a consistent feel are very important, while the novelty of a system is inconsequential. For the HERO system, I feel that the killing attack mechanic adds a layer of undue complication. It should be replaced with a lower-cost variant of AVLD (resistant defense) in order to put it in line with other attacks in the game. For an example of one of the worst systems ever - IMHO, of course - I would point people to Shadowrun. Though the latest edition cures many ills of previous editions, it is still the reigning champ of undue complication and improper results among those game systems I've played. I strongly tend to dislike small-die mechanics where success is measured by the number of dice that meet/exceed the target number, because each jump in difficulty often represents a 16.7% difference. Thankfully, I've never seen a pure d4 system, but there are scads of d6 systems that have this problem (including the aforementioned Shadowrun). I also tend to dislike open-ended dice systems, because they're all too often the band-aid for poor small-die mechanics and add unnecessary complication while taking numbers out of the range of possible results (e.g. 1d6 gives results of: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, etc.). Again, Shadowrun falls into this category, but it has plenty of company. While I play in a Savage Worlds game, I could not recommend the system as it stands today. You have open-ended/small-die/small-pool mechanics, combined with a "wild" die, playing cards for initiative, and special cards that allow for certain actions and benefits during any game session. Basically, it lacks cohesion and unduly complicates gameplay by trying to incorporate too many elements. I still enjoy the campaign, which speaks worlds about the GM, but the system just isn't good. I love HERO, but I'm not a purist. D20 is has a logical flow and produces reasonable results, so I like it. True20 takes this one step further and, between the two, is probably the better system. I also like the original system for HKAT. WOD2 is consistent and easy to use, so I like it for that, but the reasonableness of results isn't up to par - it is probably the least of those systems that I approve of.

Re: Character: Daredevil (rough draft) STR seems high at 20 (I would expect 15ish), but overall I was extremely surprised at the restraint shown with the character. Many HERO gamers wouldn't balk at a DEX 30+ SPD 7+ build of Daredevil. To me, he's purely a DC:TAS character and you've come pretty close to nailing that. I might've given him more BODY and less INT/EGO, but that's quibbling over a few points here and there. Good build.

Re: Combat Question: The "counter" I like to use an appropriately-powerful HA triggered to a successful Block (and requiring a to-hit roll). Simple. If you really want to show the "combo" aspect of it, then buy some OCV levels that only work if your previous attack landed. You could stagger these so you get +1 if your previous to-hit roll succeeded, +1 if your previous two to-hit rolls succeeded, +1 if your previous three to-hit rolls succeeded... etc. So if you had five such levels you could get a +5 with an attack if you have a streak of five successful hits going. To take this concept even further, do the same thing with extra HA dice.

Re: Campaign Limits: what's your formula? My basic rule looks at expected damage per turn as a guideline. 1. Approximate your game's average DCV. 2. Determine the character's OCV with a given attack. 3. Using the above, determine the probability of hitting with that attack. 4. Approximate your game's average defense (as appropriate for the attack). 5. Determine the attack's average gross damage. 6. Subtract the average defense from the average gross damage to get average net damage. 7. Multiply average net damage by probability of hitting (#3 above) to get expected damage. 8. Multiply expected damage by SPD to get expected damage per turn. So long as all players are reasonably equal in this regard, the game remains adequately balanced. You can set a cap, if you so wish, to keep a game within a certain power level. If you want faster combat, you can raise the cap. If you want more cinematic combat, you can lower the cap. I allow deviations from the guideline on the defensive side of things. A weaker defense can justify a stronger offense and vice versa, but I am not likely to allow significant deviations. "Glass-jawed cannon" and "limp-wristed turtle" are generally not good Champions concepts. As with all such systems, it can be gamed. For example, a 12 SPD character with a weakish attack may qualify under the guideline, but may not be appropriate for the game (be sure to look at his move through!). Also a 2 SPD character can sacrifice some offense to get near-impervious defenses and still have a crazy powerful attack. I recommend setting a SPD range appropriate to the game (I like 4-8 for CU games) and not allowing deviations from said range (at least at the start).

Re: Building a Cybernetic "brainjack" How about just buying it as extra SPD, limited to actions that interface with a computer or network, only when jacked in? The point of the jack is that it's supposed to be faster than using other inputs, not that it makes you any more skilled. Alternately, model cyberspace on a "Speed Zone" basis, with jacks giving characters different amounts of SPD (based on quality). I'd probably limit it to no more than one turn worth of actions for balance's sake, but it'd be appropriate, I think. This is probably the best model, but can get expensive in a hurry and may not be worth the points depending on the campaign.

Re: Plot Seed: Six Places to Nuke When You’re Serious I don't want to know where they'll get the cream to make butter if all the cows are vaporized...

Re: Re-Imaged Hero(ines) At first, the power to change into a man-sized earth elemental was fun. Quickly, the fun took on another aspect - duty - as Jim McKenzie realized he could and should do a lot of good in the world with his newfound power. He adopted the identity of "Stone" and began his life as a superhero. No sooner had he set about helping than he found himself among other superhumans working to make the world a safer and better place. As a member of the Defenders of Detroit, Jim worked diligently to become a trusted and respected hero. Then came July 23, 1992 - the Battle of Detroit. So much death and destruction due to one man's ego and power. The fighting seemed to go on forever. Nobody should have to see anything like that in their lifetime. Nobody should have to participate in anything like that in their lifetime. Jim was the only surviving member of the team. The horror of the battle and loss of his friends changed him deeply. After the Battle of Detroit, Jim disappeared for over a year and many assumed him dead. During that year, he did a lot of soul searching and came to realize he had a new duty in the aftermath of the Battle. He had to take it upon himself to stop supervillains and madmen from harming innocents - permanently. Some people, those with the power and will to use it against innocents, just could not be allowed to live. Since few others had realized this, Jim found a new calling. Since 1995, he has hunted supervillains under the name "Tombstone." Fearful that any kindness shown to a supervillain could result in loss of innocent life, Tombstone grants no mercy to those he faces. His actions have been judged harshly by his peers and the press, but he continues on, knowing that any loss of respect or understanding is worth it when balanced against the cost of a life saved.

Re: Plot Seed: Six Places to Nuke When You’re Serious Hmm... New York, Tokyo, Washington (D.C.), Vatican City, Jerusalem, or Moscow? You could go with one of the potential world-destroying options, but I don't see myself as one of those villains who just wants to destroy everything. I'd want to survive to live in a world largely unaltered (except in the social/economic/political senses) by my actions.

Re: Re-Imaged Hero(ines) After much deliberation, I'm giving the win to... Well, see, it's hard to pick the winner here. Two concepts are very close to each other, one stepped out of traditional setting boundaries (not a bad thing and unexpected), and another took the character down the dark side (not a bad thing and unexpected). Lots of interesting stuff going on here with the use of the name. Now I have to pick one from that bunch? It's just mean, I tell you... mean! Still, I chose the name, so I have to choose the winner. I'm giving the win to JackValhalla for his decidedly darker twist on the character, something I didn't see coming and would enjoy using in pretty much any setting.

Re: Superhero Comics & D&D Alignments My interpretation, just to mix things up a bit more... Law/Chaos Axis: Lawful = society over the individual Neutral = balance of society and individual Chaotic = individual over society Good/Evil Axis: Good = prevent harm to others Neutral = not cause harm to others Evil = cause harm to others Under this interpretation, Batman would be Lawful Good. He puts the importance of an ordered society over individual rights and seeks to prevent harm to others. While he does not work within the boundaries of ordered society, the establishment and maintenance of such a society remains his driving concern.

Re: Ultimate Scrapper? Back to the original topic, Wolverine is special in that he actually takes a lot of damage. Plenty of characters are extremly tough, such that they take a lot of hits, but take little damage. Plenty of characters are extremely agile and don't take many hits. Wolverine takes both hits and damage (despite being extremely agile), which puts him in a very small group. The most comparable character (outside of blatant clones) is probably Deathstroke the Terminator from DC. I don't really know if the scrapper archetype is popular, though. Wolverine's popularity is mainly due to the angsty, rude, anti-hero thing. He also has the super-ninja-samurai / secret agent / black ops killer / mutant / maybe immortal / munchkin's dream background. I think the power set is ancillary to his popularity.

Re: "Active Points" in VPPs - follow up from the Hero System Questions forum Along these lines, what sort of limitation would you allow for the control cost of a Cosmic VPP that can only be used for Energy Blast attacks with Force special effects? My first thought is that, since it strictly limits the power that can be created and the special effects of that power, it would be worth -1 1/2. However, I'm interested in what others would find reasonable and why.

Re: Strangest Game Mechanic I Have Seen Yet When I saw the concept, my first thought was "Spawn" Granted, Spawn had the high-quantity, no-refresh END Reserve and it was the costume that could draw energy from evil, so the comparison isn't perfect, but that was the firs thing to come to mind. Still, good for the player. It isn't a tired old schtick and it sounds like he enjoys it. It sounds like it could be a bit disrupting to the game, but if everyone's cool with losing the character occasionally, then it's fine.

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA]

Re: Character limitaions: Another CSL vs MA Inspired thread Campaign limits and concept limits based off those those, as appropriate. What is and is not superhuman depends on the campaign in question. If you want a superhuman characteristic, then it will require an other-than-normal-human concept.

Re: Normals w/Abilities vs Supers [Offshoot of CSL vs MA] The power armor character gives up is consistency, which impacts the opportunity to use the power, not the use of the power when available. To me, the distinction is very important, but apparently not to OddHat and Gary. This is fine, but differs from my feelings on the issue, so the example isn't going to be useful. Going a different direction now to try to solve some of the issue... For the most part, I think we all agree that in many campaigns a normal human, regardless of how highly trained and how incredibly talented, would have some upper limit to their range of characteristics. There would come some point at which the GM would say (and the player should say) "you've escaped your concept, got a reason for it?" and the player would have to either explain it or have the change disallowed. For a game without stat inflation and an eye toward more realistic attributes, I would put this at NCM and allow double cost to a certain point beyond that (said point depends on concept and campaign). Others would apparently go higher, though I believe 30 tended to be a well-recognized limit? If true, then we've already determined that a normal human can't go beyond a certain level, now we're just quibbling over where to set that level (apologies to the late Winston Churchill). If superhuman speedster can go above 30 DEX and perfect normal human cannot, then perfect normal human is necessarily hindered - by concept alone - and cannot be as good as the superhuman speedster in that regard. If superhuman speedster can go above 40 DEX and perfect normal human cannot, then perfect normal human is necessarily hindered - by concept alone - and cannot be as good as the superhuman speedster in that regtard. As soon as you set a level whereby a normal human could not possibly exceed a given figure in any chosen thing, you've cut that character off solely by virtue of that character's concept. This leaves few alternatives. 1. Set the campaign maximum at whatever perfect normal human can reach. Doing so achieves fairness, but also means that no PC may ever be superhuman regarding that particular characteristic. 2. Admit that even the perfect normal human has limits, beyond which only superhumans may go. Doing so impacts the range of options open to the perfect normal human, but allows for superhuman characters regarding that particular characteristic. 3. No limits on anything - with enough training and the right genes, an infinite DEX is possible for anybody. Here the game can suffer horribly from imbalance issues, any acknowledgement of realism goes out the window, and "superhuman" is a meaningless word. For me, I would choose either #1 or #2. Most likely, I would choose #2. For most games, a reasonable limit would be imposed based on the campaign in question. For the "no inflation" campaign, it'd be NCM with the option ot buy up a few points beyond at double cost. For the standard superheroic game, I could see allowing perfect normal human characters up to legendary levels, but limited to particular characteristics critical to the concept and probably still disallowing or severely restraining things like STR.