Vanguard

9 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

And BTW, nobody buys ten MA maneuvers.  They buy four or five, maybe six or seven at the most.  Beyond that you definitely get diminishing returns.  Then they might buy levels with them, and extra DCs - for some very good returns.  

Um, on of my characters has 10 MA maneuvers.  And I don't feel like I'm getting diminishing returns from them . . . . 

I've also bought levels with them and, I think, I even started buying some DCs to go with . . . 

'Course I'm now probably going to be told I'm doing it wrong and wasting points but . . ::shrugs:: it works for me and while I've found you can do it the way DB pointed out.  it just doesn't feel right.  To me it feels to  . . . efficient, if that can be a thing.

On 7/4/2019 at 4:20 PM, Lord Liaden said:

As a Canadian, I honor this day because of the ideals it expressed and strove to make manifest, that transformed the world. That all men are created equal. Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's no secret the United States of America has often fallen short of those ideals, as have we all. But in just aspiring as a country to make them real, America has been an inspiration to people everywhere, and helped ignite a fundamental shift in how people see their responsibility to their fellow human beings. Whatever pettiness we may be dealing with today, that's a legacy worth celebrating.

Hell yeah!

On 7/4/2019 at 1:51 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I enjoyed Magic for the first generation of it, but when they changed the cards and kept changing the rules I lost interest, and sold my suitcase full of cards to pay bills.

Same here.  With the exception of still having my cards.

I've thought about selling them but with the crazy dying down, I doubt I'd get much for them so I just hang on too them for nostalgia's sake.

Who knows, maybe I'll start playing again.  Although I think most of the cards I use(d) are now banned . . . /shrug

1 hour ago, Spence said:

I've found that initial expectations of their "superhero" will be crushed by what they actually build the first time. 

Exactly. 

And I think I've figured out why.  

When someone thinks about "superheroes",  I think they're thinking of the well established ones.  Like Superman, Batman, The X-Men, etc.  They then try to cram all those "years of experience" into the very finite amount of starting points that they're given and wind up extremely disappointed.

Something I also found occuring in our group, was when thinking about stats, they weren't think about "Okay how much stronger than a normal human is my brick".  They were thinking "Okay, how much stronger than the normal superhero is my brick".  Which lead to incredibly inflated states.  At least in my mind.

On 6/27/2019 at 4:06 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

I don’t mind buying the proper Weapon Familiarity for a Super even though I don’t have too.

I do this in the off chance that the enemy drops said weapon and/or I pick on up during the game.  While it's possible that the GM will say "Hey, that weapon is that type that you always use so you're good" there's the distinct possibility he won't so I like to have my bases covered.

At character creation, i spend points on background skills and occupational skills.

After character creation I wind up spending points on acquiring skills I should have had at character creation but didn't have the points for as well as buying skills that could be used to assist any powers/abilities I have acquired over the course of game play.

On 6/19/2019 at 10:48 AM, Simon said:

Man, the developer must be old.

Maybe "old" is too strong of a word . . . how about we go with "seasoned".

On 6/11/2019 at 12:23 PM, Toxxus said:

Players love being able to make their character the way they imagine it and not being constrained by classes.

This, to me, seems the biggest selling point to Hero.

The downside to this is that everything needs to be built.  

On 6/11/2019 at 11:24 AM, massey said:

 

Wow you're right.  Crap.  We've been playing it wrong for more than 20 years.

Have you though?

I mean, if it's working for your game and you folks are having fun, are you truly doing it wrong?

21 hours ago, dsatow said:

Yeah, the rule work well for heroic games where someone get pounded into unconsciousness but less so for superheroic games or heroic games bordering on the superheroic.  In those games, I usually just house rule that getting unstunned is an attack action without the extended time.

It actually works rather poorly for heroic level games because you're generally dealing with lower amounts of defenses but higher levels of attacks.  So the chances of being Stunned are higher than they are in a Superheroic game where the defenses are much, much higher.

You're also dealing with much more limited amounts of phases in a heroic level game than a superheroic one.  So, in general, that ruling is much more of a show stopper in heroic games.

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Related, I use a house rule where knockout levels are dependent on your CON.  Its a subtle change, but it helps make CON matter more and fits in my mind

 

So instead of 

 

0 to -10 stun = recover per phase

-11 to -20 stun = recover every post 12 phase

-21 to -30 stun = Recover per minute

etc

 

Its now

 

0 to -CON in stun = recover per phase

-CON+1 to -CONx2 = recover every post 12 phase

etc

 

Basically the hardier you are, the more abuse you can sustain before it puts you down long term.  This applies only for PCs, of course.

Oh . . . I like that.

Mind if I steal it?

19 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

Women like pretty things.  This includes very pretty men.  

So . . . . more glitter will help?

16 hours ago, Steve said:

I'm wondering if MCU Cap might be better represented by having only a 5-6 SPD but then adding on a couple of extra points of Limited SPD (only for use with melee maneuvers).

The only problem with this, unless GM handwaved, is that using Limited Speed RAW is extremely complicated to use. So much so that, the rare times we've actually used it in our games (and it was heavily limited) we've just let the character act on the new Spd.

14 hours ago, Greywind said:

[snipped video to preserve space]

 

At about the 2:30 mark seems Cap (and Panther) are pretty mobile on the field.

13 hours ago, massey said:

Yeah, remember him basically keeping up with cars on foot in Civil War.

Ya know, that's one of the things I like about the MCU portrayal of Cap. 

They use subtlety to show just how powerful he really is.  And most of the time, it's background stuff that might go unnoticed. Like jumping off the bike and throwing it at the jeep in Age of Ultron. Tearing the cord of wood in half with his bare hands (Age of Ultron again if I recall correctly). And my personal fave, in Infinity War's (See video clip further upthread) final battle.  Black Panther starts out running towards the enemy with Cap a good distance behind and then Cap catches up.  I believe that if they had just a bit more distance before meeting the enemy, Cap would've pulled ahead.

I sorta do it like Lucius but I edit the limitation to include what location(s) the armor covers . . . 

Like this:

Spider Silk Hood:  Damage Resistance (3 PD/3 ED); (Protects Locations 3-5) (-1 1/2)

I can't recall where I get the limitation values but I'm pretty sure it 's the same place as the "covers only certain parts" that Lucius mentioned.

On 4/18/2019 at 2:41 PM, Pariah said:

 

He did.  Of course, Obi-Wan went on to appear in two more movies, so Luke's vanishing act, in and of itself, means pretty much nothing. Except for the special effects budget they'll have to dedicate to his (re) appearance.

Good point. 

On 4/12/2019 at 6:45 PM, zslane said:

The teaser may not be designed to help us learn what the movie is really all about, but its job is to get us excited to see the movie. That appears to have worked on kids and casual fans (not exactly the most discerning lot), but it barely moves the needle for the hardcore fans who have been wounded too deeply by the profound disappointment that was The Last Jedi and the rehash of episode IV that was The Force Awakens.

I ran out of likes before I saw this comment.

But i whole heartedly agree.  I saw the teaser trailer and shrugged and went about my day. No buzz, no thrill, no *want* to see anymore.  I liken it unto the Last Jedi trailers.  The more of them I saw, the more I didn't want to go see the movie.

So I highly doubt I'll go see Rise of Skywalker.  If I do see it, it won't be in the theater.

On 4/12/2019 at 6:52 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well it wasn't clear Luke died, just that he... fell over for no apparent reason after acting like a completely different person than 3 previous films established him being.

Didn't he disappear like Obi-Wan did?  Granted, the only lasting impression the Last Jedi left was one of "eww" so I could be misremembering.

On 3/31/2019 at 4:41 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

In Hero terms, does it matter? (Not being snarky here)

That's okay. No snark detected.

And I suppose not.  Whether you're hunkering down behind your faithful shield or slapping arrows aside while charging . . . it all boils down to "I don't get an owie".

On 4/1/2019 at 6:09 AM, Toxxus said:

 

Depending on the range and volume of arrows it was probably some of both.

/salute

On 3/22/2019 at 7:36 AM, Toxxus said:

 

Also, it's quite historically accurate to be able to block arrows with shields.  It is the historical go-to tool for dealing with ranged attacks.

I'm not a history buff but were they really blocking the arrows or more just hiding behind their shields as the sky rained arrows?

2 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

But why were they given the DEX needed to get those CVs in the first place? 

You're guess is as good as mine.

On 2/27/2019 at 7:48 PM, PamelaIsley said:

Leaving aside points, villains OCVs and DCs are just out and out outrageous in many cases. 

That's because they're still created with DEX/3 DVC rule.

The way CVs were figured changed in 6th but none of the prepublished characters did.  Most of them were just copy/pasted from earlier editions and those that were rewritten or given a power boosted just maintained the old CV values.

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Friendly I read Taknofanes and he is absolutely ridiculous! When I finished reading him, I was like why the bleep didn’t he conquer the world! I don’t have C:NW but any answer I feel at this point would be stretched thin.

Hm, have you happened to look at The Harbinger of Justice from Dark Champions?

4 hours ago, Tjack said:

 

 

      Rolling a 3 on TV repair?    Free HBO & Netflicks for life!!!!

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Interesting programs from other countries?  From Venus?  From next week? 

 

Maybe it's now the world's first high-def 3D CRT screen? 

 

Or go with the more obvious, if a bit more mundane, suggestion for a critical repair roll:  it never, ever breaks again.   Or he did it in record time, with a stylish flair.  Something like the Fonzie thump, and viola: never breaks again. 

 

Rewards don't have to be spendible to be satisfying. 

These are kind of what we went with.

I wasn't upset, per sae, just like "Really? THIS is when I roll the 3?!"

On 2/14/2019 at 1:22 PM, Steve said:

In our current Weird West campaign being run by one of the other players in our gaming group, during the last session my character was taking care of some newly-acquired horses. I rolled my Animal Handler skill and received a 3, a critical success.

 

So, what good is a critical success on Animal Handler? Just what would a critical success on this skill do?

 

Have you ever had a critical success on a skill that felt like a total waste of an excellent roll? What skill was it on?

Yup. Was playing a character that built his own power armor and we were helping one of the PCs DNPCs.

Character went in to fix her TV (or something like that, it's been a long time since we played that campaign) and ended up rolling a 3.

Critical success on TV repair.....

As for what good a critical success on Animal Handler would be . . I got nothing.

On 2/18/2019 at 5:58 AM, Zephrosyne said:

 

I think the cutoff point may vary from campaign to campaign,  more specifically, probably especially, from gm to gm.  Speaking for myself, I don't have a long list of equipment that you can and can't have any more than I have a list of powers/power builds that  you can and can't have.  Once you know yourself as a gm and the campaign that you have built, you just know.  For myself: yes, Tom, you can have that flashlight, cell phone, and Ferrari as equipment because you can afford it (can steal it or whatever); however, if you think you are going to have Iron Man's armor (or a facsimile of) without spending character points, you're out of your damn mind.  The cutoff point is kinda like the definition of obscenity: you may not be able to exactly define it, but you'll know it when you see it.  The important thing is being consistent with your judgement and making sure your players understand it.  If you know yourself as a gm and your campaign, it isn't that difficult.

This is just awesome.  +1 "likes"

On 2/18/2019 at 8:54 AM, RDU Neil said:

 

I want to like this a lot more than once.

With you RDU but I ran out of "likes" at like midnight . . . not really sure why there's even a limit on that kind of stuff. . .  

On 2/12/2019 at 4:56 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

As to better spells, why do you think I buy 1m AoE accurate? ? And maybe no range  modifiers advantage?

Because you're just mean.

On 2/12/2019 at 4:58 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

I also thought (but haven’t used) Alternate Defense. So the spell is versus Power Defense!

REALLY mean. . . 

23 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

 

Ah, now I do appreciate that, but the problem there is that skill levels with INT based Skills do not add to Background Skills based on INT, which, well, makes very limited sense, if any.

Nothing's stopping you from making those skill levels with INT based skills adding to Background kills that have been purchased "based on INT".  Cause, to my way of thinking, once you pay those extra points, they're now "INT based" and no longer "Background".

At least that's the way we did it.

22 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

EDIT: On Perception, I would make it a General Skill, which you could then base on INT if you wanted.  This would mean that intelligent people were not necessarily perceptive, but might be, and animals with low INT didn't keep walking into trees.

Only problem with this is you'd have the Min/Maxes paying the extra point to make it Int based so that they could get more bang for their buck.

PS: I agree with most of what you've said in this thread Sean, I just happened to have run out of "likes" for the day.  /sigh

Watched it but can't really say if I liked it or disliked it.

I obviously "liked" it enough to finish it out and thought it was nicely done and acted but something just feels  . . . off . .  

That being said, if they do make a season 2, I'll probably watch it.

On 2/4/2019 at 6:34 PM, Old Man said:

 

Only a Sith...

 

Anyway I personally have some issues with absolutes in Hero.  Usually this can be adequately modeled with sufficiently great (and expensive) active points.  But I might argue that a one-meter vorpal blade would have a hard time decapitating a dragon with a three-meter neck.

 

The way I have modeled vorpal in the past is +HKA only vs. location 4 (if using hit locations) or activation 5- (if not).  Here I assume that vorpal blades are sharper vs. necks, not more accurate vs. necks. 

 

Next up: How to model a vorpal warhammer.

Sorry about the belated reply.  I don't make it to the Hero boards as often as I used to . . 

Anyway, I totally agree and it's one of the many reasons I like hero.

I detested the absolutes found in D&D and it's cousins due to the fact that, like you, some of the things just didn't make sense.  To use your example, not only would it have that issue but how would you actually manage to get close enough TO the neck to sever the head?

The other reason I don't like them is I was, too often, on the receiving end of them.  Save vs Death or Die.  And death ensued.