Gary

Re: 6th Ed House Rules For most campaigns that I've seen, it may be appropriate to break the cost of +1 to a skill into tiers: 2 pts per +1 Skills that can give you combat advantage on a regular basis Acrobatics Breakfall Contortionist Power Skill Teamwork Stealth Possibly Analyse depending on whether it can give you a combat advantage on a regular basis. 3 pts per +2 The more utilized current 2 for +1 skills. Depending on campaign, different skills can fall into this category. Examples for interaction skills might be Charm and Persuasion. Note that for 3 pts, you can increase 1 skill by +2 or 2 skills by +1 each 1 pt per +1 The less utilized current 2 for +1 skills. Depending on campaign, different skills can fall into this category. Examples for interaction skills might be Oratory and Trading since IME they tend to be used a lot less than Charm and Persuasion. 1 pt per +2 SS, KS, PS. For 1 pt, you do can either increase a single skill by +2 or increase 2 separate skills by +1 each. Again, this is what sounds good to me in theory. Due to the difficulty of implementing this in Hero Designer, it's probably never going to happen.

Re: 6th Ed House Rules In actual play, it seems to work very well without being overpowering. While an average KA will drop the average barrier, the volatility of KA makes it very reasonable for KA to roll slightly below average and not drop the barrier. Initial characters bought 12 Def/6 Body barriers with decent size and in practice, it allowed them to isolate 1 or 2 opponents and wipe them out. We haven't changed it due to laziness. We use HD now, and it would be too much of a pain to change the cost.

A couple of things were almost instantly institututed in my 6th Ed campaign. 1) Killing Attacks have a 1/3D6+1 stun multiple (2 or 3). 1/2D6 nerfed KAs far too much. At 1/3D6+1, KAs have some real utility but still do significantly less stun than normal attacks. A sword actually becomes viable as someone's primary attack instead of a club or staff. 2) Barrier was limited. At 3 pts per Def and 1 per Body, it was WAY too powerful when stuck in someone's multipower. We limited total Def+Body to the campaign DC max +1. 3) Change Environment seems a little too powerful, but no changes have been made yet. What house rules have other people implemented?

Re: Defense Maneuver IV Whether it's realistic is beside the point. For game balance purposes, I don't think someone who purchases 3 meters of stretching for 3 pts should get +X OCV bonus against most opposition. How without the use of other powers or talents to compensate? A normal person with 12 meters of running can easily half move behind the opponent he's facing and hit from behind. And then the opponent does the same thing ad nauseum. I don't think that should warrant any sort of OCV bonus. That's the beauty of these boards. Everyone has an opinion.

Re: Defense Maneuver IV If you actually allow "from behind" as a separate discrete OCV bonus, then people with Stretching, Indirect, or TK would always get the bonus since they can always aim their attack from a direction that the opponent isn't facing. And then you always have the people who would half move behind their opponent every phase to get the bonus. I agree with eliminating "from behind" as a separate modifier.

Re: Swiss Army Machine Gun This type of attack was made for my custom Advantage. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/39488-New-Advantage-Rate-of-Fire

Does Trip and Martial maneuvers with Trip elements such as Legsweep have the same weight limit as Throws and Martial Throws (your pushed Str)? It seems like it should be easier to Trip someone than to Throw them, but then you get into ridiculous situations like Robin Legsweeping Godzilla...

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? I'm pretty sure that the Golden Rule of RPGs is hard coded into every RPG. D&D also stated that the GM can change any rule they find unbalancing, not fun, or too complicated. Perhaps, or perhaps not. A breakfall roll at -5 is very makeable for many Hero characters, especially fighters and rogues. That means only 5d6 damage from the fall. Plus if there are a swarm of serious baddies on the ground, it would probably be stupid to jump under either system. If they're cannon fodder baddies, you're probably ok either way if you jump. A typical 7th level fighter has 50-70 hp, so losing 35 in one shot is a very big deal. I think it's at least as big a deal as a Hero character losing 3 body and some stun that's recoverable in a few seconds. Of course if healing is brought into the mix, then neither character is threatened at all. I have my 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana book right in front of me. Page 18 specifically allows double specialization for +3 to hit, +3 damage, and +1/2 attack per round. And it's allowed for fighters and rangers. Cavaliers and Paladins had Weapon of Choice that was similar to specialization. It allowed extra bonuses to hit and extra attacks per round. In fact, a Cavalier or Paladin could top off at 3 attacks per round which was even better than the fighter with specialization. See page 14 of Unearthed Arcana. +5 weapons were clearly listed in the DMG. There was the generic +5 weapon, the holy avenger, and the +5 Defender. Not to mention the Wand of Force. Also, the random encounter section allowed for a +4 Defender to be given to random NPC fighters of 10-13 level. If a fighter like that could have a +4 weapon, it's not a stretch to say that a 20th level fighter or paladin could have a +5 weapon. Also, gauntlets of ogre power were on the same power chart as the +4 Defender. The vast vast vast majority of campaigns I have seen had caps higher than 100 pt heroic level characters could reach. Even if both characters could reach the cap, the 500 pt character probably has talents, skill levels, magic items, +10 on important characteristics since he can afford to pay double, etc. A 100 pt character with 20 str, 7 PD, etc is still going to be totally outclassed by the 500 pt character with 25-30 str, 10 PD, Combat Luck, Deadly Blow, +6 additional CSLs, etc. If you look at some of the spells for higher level casters, D&D should definitely be in the superheroic category even 1st Ed ones. You've got attacks that could reach 200+ active points that could be flung off in 1 phase. Same here.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? Regardless of how many limitations you put on your campaign, I find it very hard to believe that your typical 100 pt barbarian would be in the least bit threatening to a 500 pt barbarian. I'm assuming both are PC barbarians who don't just simply throw their points away on useless stuff. And I'm pretty sure that a barbarian who has adventured enough to reach 500 pts will have some magic weapons/armor/utility items that would give him a big edge over the 100 pt barbarian.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? You specifically mentioned your house rule of saying that falls were NND damage that ignored armor. Since that is not a core rule, I think saying that it's a house rule is accurate. Definitely a house rule. The base hero rules say that armor protects against falls. When comparing falls, the OP specifically stated a medium-high level fighter. If your world's medium to high level fighters have only 5 PD, they have other major problems than falls. 3 Body would take about 1-2 week to heal in Hero. 35 damage for a D&D fall would take about 5 days for a 7th level fighter or 35 days in 1-2 Ed D&D. Doesn't seem to be more threatening to me. In addition, a few seconds would recover ALL the stun damage done by a fall whereas a 7th level fighter down 35 HP is probably down about 1/2 his total. He's WAY more threatened than the Hero System fighter with 7 PD. Sorry, that doesn't sound like a 20th level fighter or mage to me. Your sample fighter character is a one trick pony who would get massacred if he were disarmed or was forced to use a Flail or Mace for example. You're also assuming a buff of +3 OCV in every battle. And using 6 bastard sword levels for damage only adds +1D6 HKA damage. He sounds like a medium level fighter who sunk all his feats into bastard sword specialization. Similar for the mage. And of course I've given an example in literature of a mage who was able to use an exotic weapon almost immediately due simply to her enormous number of mage levels. A 20th level fighter most likely is double specialized with his chosen weapon and probably has a +5 weapon and a good chance of girdles or gauntlets to raise his Str. Even without, he probably has +2 from Str. So +5 for weapon, +3 for double specialization, +2-6 for Str, and you can easily get to a 2 needed for a hit. Plus there were various buffs to get his to hit number even better. And every single one of his attacks gets this to hit. It got kinda ridiculous when haste spells and two weapon use were in play. My favorite was someone double specializing in flails with 18 dex and using 2 rods of flailing and hasted. 5/2 attacks base, double for 2 weapon use, double for haste, and double for rod of flailing meant 20 attacks per round. +3 damage for double specialization, +6-12 for Str, +3 for Rod of Flailing meant that demon lords got killed in 1 round. This is a ridiculous example, but the average 20th level fighter with 2 weapons at 20th level could kill a pit fiend or balor in 1 round. In 2nd Ed, you could put 5 proficiencies into Grand Master specialization and your THACO, damage, and number of attacks increased even more (I believe you topped out at +5/+5 and 3 attacks base per round). I find it hard to imagine a campaign with limits that both a 100 and 500 pt character would both be topped off at. If your 100 pt characters have a 8 CV, 60 active attacks, and 20 characteristics, I would suspect a very munchkined character that would not be allowed in 99% of campaigns out there. However, I can easily see a 500 pt character reaching each limit. I stand by my statement that a 500 pt character can generally laugh at attacks that would terrify a 100 pt character. The Harbinger of Justice example is not accurate. You can't compare him to a Champions character because the ground rules are different. You have to compare apples to apples. I would suspect that he would annihilate the average character built in his universe at 100 or 500 pts. Understood. That's the beauty of the boards, being able to exchange ideas in a friendly environment.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? I think you're playing with the wrong crowd. Every DM I've seen has been pleased if a player's creativity allowed them to bypass an encounter. Then again, I usually play with roleplayers rather than hack and slashers. First of all, your comparing your house rules to the D&D base rules. A fairer comparision would be if you compared your house rules to what you would house rule a fall in D&D if you used that system. Second of all, your cap in Def is 10 which means the average fall will do 0 Body to someone at the cap. Even someone with 7 Def only takes 3 on average, which means they've probably taken about the same percentage of their hits as a medium level fighter in D&D falling 100 feet. I don't believe that a base CV of 6 represents a 20th level character very well. Part of the problem is the terms we're using. Your definition of "Heroic Scale" probably refers to lower than 10th level characters in D&D. There's no way that a 20th level wizard is any way less than a Super in power level. Shields throughout the life of Hero System have been build as +DCV. D&D 1 and 2 never scaled well. With most armor classes maxed at about -10 or so, a high level fighter would hit everytime unless he rolled a 1. With the current system, you can scale a monster as high as you want in order to challenge a party. Especially helmets which were usually angled to deflect a blow. I think you're quibbling. A 500 pt character is going to be far more powerful than a 100 pt character unless you're deliberately trying to make it not so, or unless you're trying to munchkin the 100 pt character. And if you're going that route, than a higher level D&D character who chooses suboptimal feats and character classes and has low ability scores can definitely be weaker than a lower level character who optimizes his feats, prestige classes, and has high ability scores. And I also must reiterate that I believe a 20th level wizard is far closer to a Supers character than a Heroic character. Perhaps at low levels. If he thinks that's the case at 10+ level, I have to seriously wonder if he has ever played the game at higher levels. Yep. Everything in the end boils down to personal preference.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? You don't have to kill stuff. Just defeat the challenge. A craftsman's challenge will obviously be different from a fighter's. You can do the same thing with a respectable pointed Hero character. 100 ft is about 10D6 damage, and any respectable Hero character with decent PD will take little if any Body. Did you ever read Glen Cook's Black Company series? The Lady was able to master an exotic weapon (the Rumel) with absolutely no prior training. 20th level magic users are epic characters who pretty much outclass 5th level characters at everything. It's like in Hero where someone with base 10 OCV is better than someone with a base 5 OCV even in an unfamiliar weapon. Game balance. I believe Hero system shields also only provide +1 or +2 DCV for the most part. And D&D shields get much better once you throw some magic on them. Armor helps quite a bit. With a 20th level fighter's progression at +20/+15/+10/+5, the first 1 or 2 attacks might hit, but the armor has a very good chance at stopping the last couple of attacks. Just personal preference. Same in Hero. A 500 pt character is going to laugh at attacks that strike fear into 100 pt characters. There are feats that allow you to increase save DCs. But the fact is that a lot of the higher level spells are one shot kills, so if you didn't have this progression, then spell casters would be even more lethal than they are currently. I don't think anyone in D&D is arguing that spellcasters are underpowered... Not that D&D 3.5 isn't without flaws, but a lot of the criticism is something that most game systems struggle with.

Suppose the Multiple Attacker Bonus rule is in effect. The target has the option to ignore most of the attackers to get full DCV vs 1 single attacker and be 1/2 DCV vs the rest of the attackers. Can the target choose to concentrate on more than 1 "dangerous" opponent to ignore the rest? Suppose Dr Destroyer, Takofanes, Foxbat, and Bulldozer are all coordinating against Barney the purple dinosaur at the same time because he's annoying. Can Barney choose to focus on just Destroyer and Takofanes and be at -1 DCV vs the 2 of them while being at 1/2 DCV vs Foxbat and Bulldozer? Or can he only choose 1 to focus on?

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD I'd actually prefer disads rather than sellbacks. Sellbacks become especially pernicious when dealing with Summons and similiar structures since they allow the summons to be more points than paid for by selling back abilities worthless to the summons. A 100 pt summons can easily be 125-150 through judicious use of sellbacks for things the summons might not really need. If only disads were allowed, a 100 pt summons can still only be 100 even selling back Swimming or Int or Ego for a combat summons, or Str, Con, Body for a scout summons, etc.

Re: Hero System 60th Edition http://progressquest.com/