Ninja-Bear

On 6/25/2023 at 3:08 AM, Gauntlet said:

Would anyone be able to state what would be the best way for something to be able to steal the skills and memories of something they killed? I had thought of using VPP but you cannot put skills in a VPP.

Years ago I saw something like this question and really, unless your hidebound about the rules (which I can be to my own annoyance) the VPP for skills is really the easiest way to go.  

Well this past weekend I got to run the Battle in Christopher Park. My brother used a heroic version of Powerhouse straight out of the book and I used an updated (to 4th) version of Brick from the Viper Nest booklet. And it was a tough battle! I still can’t get my brother to understand that he almost stunned Brick. The version I used has a whopping 38 CON!  

On 6/23/2023 at 2:21 PM, tkdguy said:

If you use terrain in your game, how do you set it up quickly enough to avoid disrupting play? Here's one solution:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WwSpqWC3bU

That’s neat but I’d be glad just to have the tile pieces!

On 5/19/2023 at 10:45 AM, greypaladin_01 said:

 

Very much the case.  Each edition seems to change costing on various things, I am sure as an attempt at balance, but then also tends to give big increases to the Character Points provided to characters... so I'm not sure if there really is a net change in the end.

I’ve just caught Powers themselves have changed too. I just updated Brick from (I think 1st because he’s on the pamphlet of Viper’s Nest) to 4th and things like DI and Growth have extra benefits that 4th doesn’t provide. Growth adds to running for free. Also DI adds to Con although the extra STR from DI doesn’t add to leap. 

When I get the chance I’mll look at Combined Attack but my gut says that Hugh is wrong. Combined was designed to allow two different attacks to he fired off at the same time else why is there also Multi-attack which does allow you to fire off the same attack more than once? Also Combined Attack is an optional maneuver right? So the GM just says no? -Right?

And I noticed that we as a group hafe seem to have gotten away from the rule about Sfx. That in defining a sfx you may get minor benefits and drawbacks. As Lonewolf pointed out, having 32 pistols should allow a typical human to fire all 32 at once. In fact when I have allowed Two weapon attacks, I limited them to two attacks only. It limits rolls and the drag on the game extra rolls can cause. 

On 6/16/2023 at 9:38 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

As each item of "doubled equipment" is "distinct from each other, each with its own identity and use even if they're defined identically in Hero System rules terms", they should be usable as a Combined Attack. If a character with a gun and a knife can shoot and stab one target as a combined attack, why would a character with two guns or two knives not be able to use both against the same target, the same way?

I got two points for you Hugh and honestly and either one really are unsatisfactory.

1) Even though they are distinct I feel they still fall under Multi-attack. Multi-attack uses the same mechanical attack in each strike. I guess Steve considered HKA and RKA as being different enough.

2)Well by default a Viper agent who successfully blocks Ogre takes no damage nor knockback. (I had to explain this to a friend). Does it make sense? Depending how “realistic” you see your game, no. (I told him that there are ways to deal with that.) IOW, I really don’t know. Its a wrinkle in the rules. I also allow you to grab an agent and throw him into another agent in the same phase which seems to become outlawed in 5th ed.  I can’t find that being a no-no in previous editions and I still House Rule that you can anyways.

On 6/10/2023 at 12:38 AM, greypaladin_01 said:

 

I knew about this one from BBB, but was trying to figure out if 4e had the more detailed breakdowns that 5/6e did.     Seems it only did the general guidelines.

 

Thank you!

Check out pg S25 of the BBB. It has some guidelines filled out for sample games. One is for Standard Supers.

4 hours ago, Word Sensei 515 said:

No, I meant I was wrong, not that speedsters shouldn't be able to dodge better & adjust their attacks!

Skills are actually the same or better; it's DEF that should be a little more limited, a thinner sheet of paper vs. multiple scissors, the brick is the rock.

Ah, ok. Yeah, typically they do.

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

You miss the point.

 

Multiple attack doesn't care if you have 1 sai or 2.  You can strike as many times as you want with just the 1 sai.  

 

There are nuances...like Two Weapon Fighting.  But that's a separate 10 points, and it's to offset the initial OCV penalty...which could be done with standard combat levels, probably, that wouldn't call for a 2nd weapon. 

 

Autofire is something entirely separate.  It also doesn't require a second copy;  in this case, the second copy is nothing more than SFX.  But you could define something as an ultra-light, supremely manipulable blade where you're making 2 separate, quick slashes...or perhaps a double-headed flail.  One head hits solidly, the other glances off.......  Or it's a magical multi-strike dagger, which makes copies of itself.

 

Autofire is an advantage on an attack power.

Multiple Attack is a combat maneuver, with a lot of flexibility.

 

Which is better?  It's very much build-dependent.  I generally prefer Multiple Attack, so I can avoid the gotchas in Autofire, like using it with any non-standard damage invoking a huge markup.  Same with Reduced END, for that matter, it's double cost.  But YMMV.

Yeah, I am missing because I thought the argument was because of buying the second sai you could then use the multi-attack. 
 

Btw, two weapon fighting is neat but it has it problems of reduced DCV. 
 

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Request for clarification:

 

Arw we uaing "multiple attack" and "multiple power attack" interchangeably, or are we discussing two different things?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Good question because well I’m not sure either. 

So if and that’s a big if, I understand Muti-attack, I can hit the same opponent more in the same phase? If that’s true, I did some very rough math. So say I put on AF x2 (+1/4) on the sai-represent hitting twice with two sais. At 15 ACT pt and with the advantage you’ll be paying 19 ACT so it actually cheaper than the 5pt rule. At 20 act pt then it works out to to an even 5 pt. 30 pts you do get it cheaper as then it goes to 7 pts. Plus Multi-attacks incur a cumulative penalty.  So no, the rule itself isn’t abusive

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

This comes down to what Seeker is actually getting for his 5 points.

 

Does he now get to attack twice as a combined attack because he has two Sais?  If so, that sounds like he should pay full points for the second attack, just like anyone else wanting to use two attacks at the same time as a combined attack.

 

Can he use one and had the second one to Obsidian?  That sounds like he should be paying for both powers separately, again as he is using them separately.

 

As I think on it, he could have a Sai, a Bow and a Sword in a Multipower, using one weapon at a time. Perhaps he could simply buy another Sai slot representing that second Sai, which he can use if the first one is damaged or disarmed. Or we could simply allow a 5-point Adder to have a backup focus (or a second use of the same innate power) that can be used if the first is broken, suppressed, disarmed or what have you.

 

The key is in defining what the ability does, and setting a commensurate point cost, ideally with an existing mechanic.

And that’s fine. And what I defined Seeker’s second sai was to have two and if one got disarmed then he has a second one. Now sfx wise, that second one probably be in use as a descriptor but no extra mechanical bonus. For example, I might described them as being crossed when Blocking but no additional DCV unless paid for. Or one sai is in guard postion while the other one strikes. No adding damage, no multi-attack. (Mainly cause I could never figure out the thing and multi-attack always seemed over powered.) As to lending it to Obsidian, why not, in the short term anyways though personally if I bought it as defined in one if the martial supplement, I would only allow the HA to be used unless Obsidian somehow knew how to use a sai or similar weapon. Using those tines to aid in Disarming takes some skill. But lets not forget that that having the second sai being OAF can be used against Seeker also. 

I found it. Pg S22 “Playing the Numbers”

On 6/10/2023 at 7:59 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

I know they were published in the old (pre-Online) Adventurers' Club, probably near the end of its run, but I don't recall which issue.

Its also reprinted in the BBB.

I was thinking Suppress REC only vs Natural Healing: Body.

@Hugh Neilson, since you don’t like the 5pt doubling rule (which is fair) how then would Seeker’s character buy the second Sai? Would you charge the player full points for a second weapon? Or custom limitation like OAF (-3/4)? Or something else? 

On 6/9/2023 at 5:28 PM, greypaladin_01 said:

Thank you that helps for the 6e side.   Now to see if I can find anything for 4e era.

 

My other curiosity is if anyone has looked into how accurate those guidelines are actually followed in the rest of the products, such as Enemies books and the like.

If memory serves me correct, in the beginning of Classic Enemies, Scott Benny does list a rough guideline of how the villains are built. Since most were 4th ed updates, they held fairly close to the reasonable character suggestions listed in 3rd ed.  Whereas in CKC, Steve Long modified characters up (and down I think) in power levels and also origins, for example Vibron is now an alien.

As soon as I posted, I thought of your point of clarity of the rule. Yes what is implied I believe but should’ve made clear that the doubling doesn’t add to the doubled power. I.e. Seeker having two Sais doesn’t give him a +6D6 HA he still does +3D6 HA but could lose one. So the same way that the armor example. You shouldn’t be able to add two pieced of armor together to get tougher armor. You lose one ring and you still have the same amount of armor Def. That should be explained a little better.

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Having 2 sais has only a few, very narrow, rules implications...disarming one doesn't leave him weaponless, and if he's bought it, Off Hand Defense and Two Weapon Fighting.  Otherwise, it's nothing but justification for Multiple Attack, or for "I feint with one to attack with the other."  

 

WIthout even trying to get seriously abusive, tho, why can't I define a pair of rings giving, say, 5/5 rDEF, and get a total of 10/10?  The rules are *silent* on this.  And even if they're IIFs, something this small would still save 7 points.  Or get more complex.  The thing that makes Hugh's obviously abusive is extending the doubling ad absurdem to drive the point home, but hey, how about 2 PD, 2 ED Negation, IIF (16 points)....x4.  Arm bands.  26 points for 80 points of negation, and it's...semi-plausible.

 

The doubling rule isn't the issue per se;  it's the failure to explain it properly.

I really don’t think that its explained poorly. I was a way for weapon users (I think primarily) to cheaply pay for an addition weapon. It does follow the logic of buying vehicles and Bases. I mean we can go back to having a weird OAF (-3/4) I believe this was suggested Dark Champions 4th ed. The OAF is reduced because with Seeker if someone Disarms his Sai, he has another one or someone would have to do a Sweep Disarm to remove both in a single phase.  I see this doubling as allowing a player to buy a redundant power to “make sense”. That is the spirit of the rule. And anything that goes against the spirit of the rule shouldn’t be allowed. Isn’t that Hero 101?

On 6/4/2023 at 4:38 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

Never been a fan of the doubling rule.  Consider The Modified Mandarin

 

+5 PD/+ ED 5 rDEF IIF Thumb Rings (12 points) doubled (+5).

 

60 point Multipower with 8 Fixed attack slots, IIF Finger Ring (86 points), Doubled 3 times (+15).

 

Or let's be really gross:

 

+1 PD/+1 ED/+1 Mental Def/+1 Sight Flash Def/+1 hearing Flash Def/+1 Smell/taste Flash Def/+1 Touch flash def/+1 Power Def rDEF IIF Thumb Rings (10 points) doubled 5 times (+25) so 32 rings (35 points).

 

60 point Multipower with 8 Fixed attack slots, IIF Finger Ring (86 points), Doubled 7 times (+35) so 128 rings (121 points).

 

Extra Limbs: 16 Arms, 5 points

 

That's 161 points spent.  I'll be needing either a big END reserve or a lot of END and REC!

 

For another 10 points, I can double it all again and have 32 arms - we'll wait and buy that with xp...

I like the doubling rules When used in reason. Seeker should have have 2 sais not one. However Hugh all you showed that a rule can be abused past its intended use. So how is that really different than than any power in Hero System?

5 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

Not sure of one thing though, with Armor Mastery I would it be better to round up or round down for the armor bonus.

 

For example

Would 7 Defense Armor gain either 3 Def (round down) or 4 Def (round up)?

Would not the Hero rule of Round in character’s favor apply? I would think so.

That’s an interesting idea. I like it. 

15 hours ago, Word Sensei 515 said:

& nobody needs this in the slightest. 5th edition says because Speedsters can easily dodge & adjust attacks, they can & should do maximum damage along with everyone else. Ergo, that's totally wrong, plain & simple. I didn't think some hidden rule was the answer, it just resembled it.

I actually found a good explanation for this with a DC conversion of the classic character Green Dragon. Something to do with his chi training reaching this potential but he lacks the ability to train more, up to his full potential as a martial artist. Nothing a staff of smiting can't fix, dragon powers would be nice too.

 

 

So you are thinking Speedsters are overpowered?

The 3rd ed Champions has a section labeled Reasonable Characters. I’m glad that @assault got to post this.

@Word Sensei 515, who should have a 12D6 Kick? I’m not sure who you are referring too.

On 6/1/2023 at 6:42 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

See?  I _live_ for moments like that in a game.

 

When you tell the stories of game sessions long ago, how many tales do you tell of "everything went exactly the way I expected / wanted"  versus the number of tales you tell of the most miraculous and the most miserable of die rolls?

 

And even when it's bad dice, the tales most often have further tales of the astounding ways you coped on the fly.

 

They are more memorable than "I re-rolled it until I got what I wanted" or "I burned some brownie points to make come out fine."

 

 

 

 

Yet another thing I enjoy about wild die rolls.  How does it affect the game?  What do we as a group do to keep things moving?

 

 

Anyway, I know that you aren't me, but other than Scott, I am rather in the minority here on the "don't like them" side of "how do we change the dice?"

 

I mean, we don't have to use them at all- there are lots of systems that don't.  I find little reason to use them right up until I am not happy with them.

 

Or maybe I am happy with then no matter what, as they are extremely impartial arbiters of what went down and what we have to deal with now.

 

 

Well I had player in Star Wars D6 who burnt character rolls like candy and still couldn’t make his target number and its still just memorable. I’ve also made bad rolls where a HAP really would’ve helped. Jumping over a person and landing on a small child really ruined that game. GM later admitted that that was something he shouldn’t allow to happen.  Still memorable but for the wrong reasons. The point of the game is to have fun and a little bit of fantasy fulfillment correct? Correct use of HAPs doesn’t take away from it.