Trebuchet

Re: Naming the baby

 

Vista.

Re: Why the dislike for Find Weakness?

 

I guess I'm one of the strange ones. I never had a problem with it as a GM, have never played a PC who had it (although I once designed one; a MA "brick breaker" named Argent who had FW on a 25-), and don't particularly mourn its loss in 6E.

 

I can see where it could be a headache in some campaigns, but it never was in games I played in.

Re: Starting over with HERO

 

Yes it is. Steve mentioned it in his chat last Wed.

 

But understand that it is only for the STUN of the attack.

Wow. That's an interesting change. I'd love to know Steve's reasoning on this. (I don't necessarily disagree with the change; I'd just like to know how and why he arrived at this particular conclusion).

Re: Starting over with HERO

 

Another change from 5e to 6e:

 

...and characters will not need any Resistant defense to reduce the Stun damage.

I hadn't heard that part. Is that confirmed?

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

You could still purchase 6e and house-rule that one thing...

 

While the volitality of the BODY of a KA is greater than an equal normal attack, I think the limited number of dice in any KA limits the detrimental effects of this volitility. So I'm not too concerned with BODY volitility, especially considering that it would take 20 BODY after defenses to kill a normal (un-bought-up BODY) character.

 

I might try a house rule to the 1/2 D6 for StunX. Roll and count the KA BODY normally, then roll an equal number of dice and total both groups to determine STUN. Increased STUN Multple would just add more dice to the second (STUN) part of the roll.

 

So a 4d6 KA would be rolled with 4d6 to determine BODY like:

 

4, 2, 5, 4 = 15 BODY,

 

Then 4 more dice would be rolled to get total STUN like:

 

3, 2, 6, 5 = 16. 16 + 15 = 31 STUN.

 

The number of dice to add to get the total STUN (prior to any ISMs) can also be fine-tuned depending upon how "Stunning" killing attacks should be in the game world.

Why not just double the rolled BODY damage to calculate Stun rather than take the time to roll twice as many dice? Quicker, with on average identical results.

 

My thought on either of these methods is that they make Killing Attacks do too little Stun. While I disliked the old Stun Lottery because its outliers were either too little or too much, I don't want them to become totally ineffectual either. With this method you're paying 3X as much for an attack that does precisely the same Stun as a normal attack against a target with rDEF but potentially much more if the target lacks any Resistant defenses. Is that a worthwhile buy? If Hero were to go that way, then buying AP or PEN attacks become a much better buy than KA.

Re: Character advancement

 

I tend to purchase new Skills and Perks with XP rather than upgrading raw combat power. I like to think this not only fleshes out the character but provides previously unavailable methods of problem solving. It's not always about pummeling the bad guy.

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

Back in the Kingdom City campaign our team got involved in the aftermath of a multiple nuclear attack on Bangladesh ( just one of a series of assassinations of Dr Strange-level mystics ).

 

To the GMs surprise, the PCs stayed in Bangladesh dealing with the relief effort, instead of going straight after those responsible. Some interesting roleplay, and novel use of powers - such as regenerating Bangladesh's native marijuana forests as medical supplies

Actually, that sounds pretty cool. Disaster relief is not something I'd want to do every game session, but it might be interesting as a change of pace.

 

I'm not certain how my primary PC Zl'f would be useful in such a scenario. Oddly enough, her potential 15- Bureaucratics (including 2 Overall Levels) ability or piloting skills might be more valuable than her heavily combat-oriented powerset.

 

My secondary character, Justicar, is a Roman Catholic priest with healing powers alongside his martial arts. He'd be useful in any number of ways both physical and spiritual.

Re: Blocking - What's the point?

 

Cough.

Did you say the same thing upthread? Sorry I missed it. I'm outta Rep for 24 hours...

Re: Blocking - What's the point?

 

Sure you can, but the bonus from the maneuver is halved as well.

 

Block is unaffected by DCV halving because it is OCV based.

I'd never really noticed that before, HM. That makes Block hands down the better maneuver to use when Prone, Grabbing, or Grabbed. Rep for pointing that out.

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I'd noticed that too But for the record' date=' I'm also against the stun lotto - I just can't see what it is designed to accomplish for simulation purposes and I don't like the effect it has on combat, especially in superheroic games. It's just that I [i']also [/i]don't like the Body lotto.

 

Steve has a difficult job, but I think there is an easy answer. Lots of people do not like killing attacks, but their reasons vary enormously. If I had to address that sort of dillema I'd give multiple options, all of which are 'core' (as opposed to a 'right way' and some other ways if you don't like that). He doesn't need to do that for all the powers, but KA causes more debate than almost anything else.

Yes, a list of several "official" options for Killing Attacks might be the best approach. I'd be surprised if this hasn't already occurred to Steve even it's not how he ultimately went (which we don't know yet). We don't know which arguments (and his own extensive experience playing Hero) carried the most weight with Steve.

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Real weapon gets horribly overused: I'm sure if it restricts things that much it ought to be worth more than -1/4. DEF and damage seem arbitrarily set to me.

 

AoE Line won't take a minute to cut a tree down: it will either do it or not. You might need a couple of goes to get a decent Body roll, but that's it. Here's what I'm thinking, as a house rule: if you attack a target continuously, you can add +1 to the Body the attack does per move up the time chart. That simulates chipping away reasonably well. A minute is +2 Body. That may well get swamped by the volatility of killing attacks, but if you are dealing with something at the top end of the damage curve, it could work quite nicely, allowing you to damage with a hundred blows something that is impervious to two or three.

I remember watching the Mythbusters chop down a foot-thick tree with a .30 caliber minigun. It can be done, but it took hundreds of rounds to do it. I think your method would simulate that rather nicely.

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Weird, isn't it.

 

I've seen hundreds of posts over the years, possibly thousands, addressing the problems with killing attacks and the stun multiple, and I do not recall one that suggested 1/2d6 stun multiplier as a solution.

 

OK, I didn't hang out much on the 6th ed threads, so maybe it was in there, but I'm having my first real concern about 6th if this is Steve 'listening'. I don't know what I was hoping for, but this seems seems like 'solving' the problem by going too far the other way.

 

No one is likely to buy KA hoping for the big score on stun, like they did (you can probably get outside the normal attack bell curve, but not often enough to make it worth it), but we stick with the high but volatile Body roll which, to my mind, causes an awful lot of systemic problems in Hero.

 

You can't judge it until you see the whole thing - that is why leaking stuff piecemeal is a bad idea, but, well, it was leaked/released, and we don't see the big picture yet - it is going to cause concern.

 

Maybe it will all work out OK. I hope so.

To me the thing that's really weird is that you and I both disliked the old Killing Attacks method but for very different reasons. You clearly dislike the highly variable amount of BODY generated; I absolutely despised the Stun Lottery but had no problem with the BODY damage. Others in my group think the Lotto is the single best feature of KA's. To me this just illustrates that there is no "correct" answer on this issue, but merely more or less tolerable compromises.

 

I'll be interested in seeing the entire package Steve puts together on what has clearly proven to be one of the Hero system's most volatile issues. There's almost no chance our group will adopt 6E when it comes out but there's also no doubt several of us will buy copies of it, if only for academic purposes. I know I'll be ordering my copy of 6E ASAA (As Soon As Available).

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

I am soooooo jealous that you have enough different Champions options to be able to pick-and-choose which games you will play in. In my area' date=' Rusty Iron seems to be the default. So it's either 'deal with Rusty Iron' or 'don't play Champions.' [/quote']It was more an issue of making my own luck. Back in 1992 I grabbed several other players who were also unhappy with the Iron Age direction the existing campaign was turning and we started our own Silver Age campaign. Over the years we've added several new players and co-GMs, but the basic philosophy has remained. I still have friends in the old campaign and in fact 3 of our players are still in it.

 

Most of us are in our 50's now, so our reminiscing about Silver Age comic books is a lot different than players who grew up in the 90's or 21st century and have often read only Iron Age titles. I doubt there are any Marvel or DC comics I'd want to read, much less play in.

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

You are right, of course. A hero would at least try. and as I said , you convinced me that most of my characters should. Possibly they could make some kind of difference even if it's only to the letter writer and their village.

The problem is that in situations like this one it is hard to know what will make a positive difference in the long run. Sure you could go in and break a few heads and guns (as you point out, not to hard for most superheroes), possibly take out the head of one of the tribal armies. Heck, if you had the capacity you might even be able to take everyone in ther village to a safe new home. However unless the campaign world runs extemely differently to the real world (or the Darker world my PCs live in) there will always be another village and another tribal army (and one of those armies will be the official army of the country). So the question becomes what is enough? Is it enough to save the letter writer (if that is even possible)? Her village? Her country (if that is possible)? What about all the other countries in Africa that are in similar situations? What about other war torn areas of the world where similar things go on? Are you any less a hero for ignoring them simply because they haven't managed to write you a letter? Heck anyone with a T.V. knew this kind of thing went on before you got the letter, why didn't you do something then?

 

I know this is pessimistic and a little 'hard-core' for a RPG, but then the topic was to begin with.

No question. I admit it wouldn't come up in our 4-color Champions game except possibly as a lead-in to a scenario where we have to figure out why this particular village keeps being attacked and stop it. Maybe a supervillain or villainous agency is at the root of all this...

 

Then again as someone pointed out, most GMs will not throw you into a situation you cannot handle (mine are not among them BTW). So it is possible that this is a hook for a situation where you can kill/beat up a few thoroughly evil bad guys take on their vile Leader, save the little girl, help restore the rightful, Democratically Elected government to power and be back at the base in time for a Brewski. Lets just say if any GM (not just the people I play with) threw this at me as a hook I would be getting ready for a no-win situation which would make most Iron Age books look positively Golden (not that I wouldn't participate, but I'd be shocked if our characters did any better than saving a handful of children while letting the rest of the country continue to suffer, and even then only after we had lost good people. Then again I kind of get pessimistic when child rape is mentioned in an intro).

I completely agree. But then, I play in a 4-color campaign and have zero interest in playing in an Iron Age one. None of our 5 co-GM's would present such a scenario unless there was a 4-color scenario hidden beneath the apparent Iron Age exterior. Given that we've had two teens playing in our campaign along with their father for the past few years, the child-rape stuff probably wouldn't appear at all.

 

(in case you wondering my usual GM sets out an adventure like so: "Here is a situation that I as a single mind believe to be unwinnable. I will give you any information that you would likely be able to obtain. You, as a group of minds, need to discover the loophole I have overlooked and exploit it.")

Again, in our campaign we'd fully expect to find (not be given) that loophole based on past experience and general campaign tone. I know there are campaigns that would not. Nothing against those kinds of campaigns or GMs (the beauty of Champions/Hero is that it will allow those variants and more); personally I just wouldn't want to play in one. I play Champions to escape reality for a while; I wouldn't be interested in playing in a game-world that is as dark or darker than the real one I inhabit.

 

This WWYCD was presented as an ugly situation. Again, I don't think it would appear in our campaign; but I've tried to address it as if it did.

 

My apologies if I seemed a bit snarky. I'm afraid my "4-color glasses" tend to tint my view of Champions. I forget there are lots of players out there playing in darker campaigns than I do. I don't play *the* game of Champions.

Re: Blocking - What's the point?

 

Block applies OCV vs OCV rather than the usual OCV vs DCV. This can shift the odds of success considerably, especially if the opponent has levels rather than inherently higher DEX and/or SPD.

 

Block also lets you defend another character; something no form of Dodge allows. We've used it many times in our Champions campaign to defend a fallen or Stunned comrade.

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

He announced it in this weeks chat.

Damn. That'll teach me to ignore chats.

 

This keeps an element of randomness, but gets rid of the instant-fight-ending x4 and especially x5 Stun Multiplier results. (I assume characters will still be able to buy Increased Stun Multiple.) A good roll can still result in a lot of Stun from the KA, but still on average less than a same-cost normal attack. This is not a perfect solution, but it's a darn good compromise.

 

I can already see this is going to be a very unpopular decision in my gaming group. Everyone but me likes the existing pre-6E version. Me, I've hated the Stun Lottery forever. I suspect ultimately this will reinforce our group's decision to stick with 5ER. Sorry, Steve. Can't win them all.

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

On the other hand' date=' saying you'd prefer to clear out the log in your own country's eye before the splinter in your neighbor's eye could be a valid response as well, for some games. [/quote']Unless you live in Sudan or the Congo. it's pretty safe to assume the "the log in your own country's eye" is a lot smaller than what's described in the OP. Even real-world Islamic radicalism in Iraq or Afghanistan looks fairly tame compared to what's been going on in the Congo for over a decade.

Re: New Broom Terrorists

 

IIRC shortly after their arrival in Utah there was a small group of radical Mormons who terrorized those fellow Mormons they felt were not sufficiently devout, committing several murders. They were only around a year or two. There was even a Sherlock Holmes story based on them.

 

That might not be as old as you want.

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

Totally depends on the tone of the game world if you ask me.

 

A lot of games would answer yes, superheroes would do something!

 

For those games where the answer might reasonably be no... maybe we're now talking about a super-vigilante game or a people with powers game, instead of a superheroes game. And there's nothing wrong with that! Different strokes and all...

Sure enough. But the OP essentially postulated a superhero type campaign; after all this is a WWYCD scenario not a "What Would Your Character Ignore?"

 

For my money, a "super-vigilante" having a crisis of conscience over receiving such a letter might provide a good opportunity for some role-playing. You don't have to have superpowers to be a hero, as firemen and soldiers exhibit on a daily basis. Having powers might make it harder to ask "But what can I do?"

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

 

(Not directed at treb)

Go ahead, direct it at me. I can take it.

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

Well, you've certain got forum sarcasm and irony down pat... I guess that's good.

 

If you postulate a world which contains superhuman beings, it's not all that far-fetched to postulate that many if not most of those superhumans could successfully deal with thugs using AK-47s. Yes, there would be those who lacked either the power, logistical capabilities, or motive to go after these types. I'd like to think most players aren't interested in playing PCs who lack the motive to protect children, even ones in a remote African region undergoing meltdown.

 

Do I think the application of force will magically end slavery and oppression in Africa (IRL or even within an RPG)? That's a discussion for the NGD. Do I think superheroes could or should at least try? Hell yes! That's why they're called superheroes.

Re: WWYCD: "Dear Superhero" (Warning: Ugly situation)

 

Most of my characters aren't in any position to help in this situation. Most, in fact, will wonder how the letter writer knew who they were in the first place (Secret ID are big with my characters (as in even my team mates are not privy to them).

 

Most of my characters would have sleepless nights over how useless they feel. Karma is the one most likely to travel to Africa and get herself killed. If Fore-eyes had his Overseer base on-line he'd use the Gate as a way of evacuating as many people as he could (and his precog to ensure he did it when there were no soldiers). All my others are a little too street-level in power to do anything.

The OP made it pretty clear the letter could have arrived by a very roundabout way or even by a proxy.

 

It doesn't take a whole lot of oomph to beat up common thugs armed with assault rifles and machetes in a world with superhumans. It's not much different than fighting gang members in urban streets. If you can't or won't even deal with that kind of thing, then what's the point of being a costumed adventurer in the first place? It's doubtful the hero(es) would need to pummel the bad guys more than a couple of times before they'd decide there are easier ways to make a living.

 

My primary PC, Zl'f, has very low defenses and a Total CvK, but that wouldn't stop her from breaking bad guys' guns and bones (not necessarily in that order).

Re: Mind Scan vs. The Detective

 

We've always dealt with mentalists short-circuiting mysteries by a couple simple expedients: 1) Use mooks who don't know the scheme as cutouts; 2) Deliberately plant false info on said mooks.

 

It's not going to take long for smart evildoers to figure out how to protect their nefarious schemes once it becomes known the heroes have a mentalist.

Re: portable computers - too much?

 

Define the wrist computer as being no more capable than a modern (real) desktop PC. It provides a basis everyone can understand, player and GM alike; and if there's any argument as to what it can or cannot do just demonstrate it on a real PC. If nothing else, limit the available Skill rolls to something modest like 11- or 12-.

 

For my money, instant access to Wikipedia or Google aren't a substitute for real expertise. That takes books, study, and probably actual experience.

Re: Why the dislike for Find Weakness?

 

An idea I had about balancing Find Weakness was this:adding it's cost to the characters DC when determining damage maximums.

Example: Ironclad has a 60 STR and Find Weakness with Punch on 11-.

For Rule of DC purposes,he is considered to have 14DCs for his main attack (his Punch).

If we still used damage caps in our Champions campaign I think we'd use a house rule like this. It's a common sense solution to avoid FW becoming potentially unbalancing.

 

Only one PC in our game has FW. Even though he has a fairly good OCV (DEX 33) we haven't found it to be a problem. For one thing, opponents tough enough he needs to use it on tend to have LoW and/or Damage Reduction; nor does he have it on his biggest attack. It takes very little LoW to render the theoretical 1/4 - 1/8 - etc defense progression moot.