Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Vanguard

  • Rank
    Where Wolf?
  • Birthday 04/07/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

698 profile views
  1. As @Hugh Neilson Explained the RAW (i think) but what we did was rule that if an item was designed to do damage (sword) then, unless it was a super-duper-duper type attack (we're talking x3 or more DCs of the base item) then it should handle the extra damage relatively well. Again, as Hugh states, if it's something not designed to do damage, chair leg etc, then we went with dramatic sense and such. I would also suggest NOT using the rule in a super's game. For the reasons stated. This is true. But, and this is based on what GMs would allow, in our games, that fork wouldn't do more than it's pip of damage. If it was allowed to do more, say the damage values you say, it would be able to do it once and then be destroyed due to the massive amounts of force being applied to something not designed to handle it. Again, each table/gm/group will have it's own way of handling things. I'm just explaining how we'd handle it. Also, like I mentioned above, I wouldn't recommend the "more than double" thing for a supers game.
  2. Since the advent of "smart" TVs a few years ago. Come on Duke . . crawl out of the dark ages. (I'm teasing BTW)
  3. It all depends on the character builds that are being used as well as genre type (at least in my opinion). In our Heroic games, the removal of the Double Damage rule didn't seem to affect the game at all. Sometimes you'd have an attack that did a helluva lot of damage but those were few and far between. Again, depending on character builds. What we did do, to sorta stop a "problem" before it became one, was to state that that type of damage output had an effect on what you were using. There were many a game were Coop, our team lead, literally broke a bat/board/etc over the melon of an opponent because it just couldn't take the stress from a blow like that. Not sure if this helped at all . . .
  4. @Duke Bushido Helps a ton. I would posit, unless I'm misunderstanding your digression, that the split of figured stats was done exactly for the reason you digressed about. To make a Robust character that didn't have an arse load of stun. The interpretation of Int is, I agree, largely to blame. And in the groups I've played it has been interpreted as being your intellectual capacity. Which is what cause my disconnect and irritation. And it is a "me" issue really. Since I did mention before, and you so kindly refrained from pointing out, that the Mr S DID pay points for his Int. just as Mr Perception paid for is increased perception. So both of them are getting what they paid for. . . *I* would be more than happy to do this but I have a feeling there'd be push back. Just like in or Gatecrashers Heroic game, the guy playing the sniper wanted to "be really quick with his rifle". So he pushed his Dex to near superhuman levels, instead of just buying lightning reflexes with Rifles. And with that. I'll stop derailing the thread. /salute
  5. Huh. Learn something new every day. Has that always been there and I just missed it? 'Cause I'm thinking I just missed it.
  6. ::nods:: But doesn't the character have to reset it?
  7. Sounds a little Vanya Hargreeves from Umbrella Academy. 'cept she could cheese it far enough to use the sound of her own heartbeat to power her abilities. Triggers, as far as I'm aware (don't use 'em that often) only work once and then need a turn (or more) to reset before working again. They can be purchased as having a Zero phase reset but then the character would still need a phase to reset the trigger. So, by my understanding of the rules, that polearms master would get 1 counter strike and then be done till at least his next phase where he could reset the trigger. . . . Again, I could be wrong as I've very seldom used triggers. If I am, please disregard.
  8. 1) I see (no pun intended) you point there and explained that way, makes sense (did it again) 2) Then he's not "seeing" he's reacting and using something, in my opinion, something like spatial awareness to be able to sense/detect the swinging objects and other obstructions that might be in his way. He's not "Seeing" as Robin would be. The canon explanation makes it a bit more palatable for me as he's using other objects and abilities to get the more detailed vision that the previous comment made it seem like he was getting. If he can "see" the dark sewer tunnels but would still need to pull out his flashlight to read what the Riddler had scrawled on the wall, then I'm good. If he could do that just because he's"s "Batman" eh . . . No so much. Well, if we fall back to "its the comics" a lot of things can be forgiven. I don't mind suspending belief due to the comic/cinematic nature of the game but there comes a point where you have to say "Oh come on! there was no way he could be able to do that!!" And both you and redsash above have beautifully explained how a high Int can/should/could give someone a high Per. It just felt a bit cheesy that Mr SuperScientist dumps all his points into Int and is just as observant as a someone that's mildly intelligent but poured a crap ton of points into Per with the explanation that he's trained for years to be observant of his surroundings. Yet MR S is just as perceptive because he's smart. Sorry about that Phil. I think you may have gotten caught up in my mass quoting and then I tried to shoehorn you in. Apologies.
  9. This is why I wish Per was delinked with all the other stats. just because you're supersmart doesn't mean you're super observant/perceptive . . . Mr problem with that harkens back to the Batman with "just really good eyes" v Robin with "Nightvision". If you have to wear vision enhancing gear to be able to see, I don't think someone without enhanced senses (and I don't mean Enhance Perception: Sight) should be able to see. Or at least not see well. Bats may be able to make out objects/shapes but I think that's all I'd give him. I mean, Bats is good, don't get me wrong but he's not superhuman. Robin, on the other hand, would get full use of the "DIscriminatory" adder that Sight gets for free. It also dovetails nicely with my thoughts on Hugh's "SuperScientist". . . Hopefully I'm making sense . . .
  10. The problem with that is that you can only use Combat Skills levels in a Multiple Attack that applies to all the things being used in said attack. For example, if you were using a strike, disarm and throw in a multiple attack and had +2 CSL w/strike but not with the disarm or throw, you can't use the CSLs.
  11. From my understanding, the delinking of figured stats had/has nothing to with getting rid of maths . . . The probably that 6th has is that ALL of the supplemental material is just cut and pasted from previous editions instead of being rewritten. So while there are no more figured stats in 6th and CV has been decoupled from DEX, all the pregened characters still use the old rules because they've just be copied from one book and pasted into the next. It's real hard for a player (new or old) to get used to the changes when everything they look at for ideas are still using the old systems.
  12. Ain't that the truth. It can be worked with but, playing heroic scale sure hammers home Hero's "Superhero" roots . . .
  13. @BoloOfEarth Did you design him that way? Edit: Because being designed to be the support character is different than trying your best to build a well rounded character and being regulated to support character because of it.
  14. I want to play the character that is actually useful and doesn't feel, and has been made to feel, like neither the player nor the character would have been missed if they hadn't shown up to the game session. And those stories you're referring to all seem to be a single player story. Where the underdog, as Gnome Body pointed out, can "rise up". Not a group of characters who are all knocking out villian left and right and you get to play Happy Hogan being all proud of himself after he, barely, took out 1 mook and Black Widow just polished off 6 of them. It's both actually. I don't, really, have a problem meeting campaign expectations. I just feel, like was mentioned, in doing so it limits the growth of the character. Once you've hit the cap, your done. You can't increase anything till the GM raises, or altogether lifts, those caps. And it should be noted here, those caps that are hit, are always, 100% the combat aspect of the campaign limits. The other "issue" I spoke about is that I, usually, find myself with more skills/background skills than I have points to pay for so i have to shave things off and remove things altogether and then find myself playing catch up while the others at the table are actually progressing their characters. Like I said, may just be a me flaw and not something that's actually a problem. So you're perfectly fine playing the Clean up specialist and letting all the other players at the table be the real heroes? And those "better GM scenarios"? I've seen them attempted and they never play out that way. The enemy that was meant to be fought by the Widow instead faces off against Thor and is immediately knocked in the next galaxy. While the enemy that was meant to go up against Thor is pitted against the Widow and while she *may* not get hit, she sure doesn't accomplish much against him until Thor arrives to be tagged in and finally take care of the bad guy. So I guess I'm saying that while you may have fun playing a third string hero, I don't.
  • Create New...