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

At 1d3+1' date=' a killing attack matches the average damage for an equivalent normal attack. eg. 12 DC normal attack averages 12 x 3.5 = 42 Stun. [/quote']

 

Nope, it's 1/3d6+1. IOW, 2 or 3 stun multiple. 2.5 average stun. 1-3 means 2 SM, and 4-6 means 3 SM.

 

I did a computer simulation of 2 bricks fighting 100 times, one with NA and one with KA. Both had 30 Def, 15 rDef, 30 Con, 60 Stun and used 60 active attacks and basically just stood there and pounded each other. I stopped the fight when one side ran out of stun or got Stunned. With 1-3 SM, the brick with 12d6 normal won about 95% of the time. With 2-3 SM, he won about 75-80% of the time. With lower defense and con characters, it was somewhat closer but not by too much.

 

As I said, NAs are still superior to a 2.5 average SM, but killing attacks aren't completely nerfed. It balances nicely in actual play.

 

I haven't worked enough with Barrier to form an opinion, although I note a DC +1 barrier will be dropped in one shot from a killing attack, but stand up to two (more if we use 0 BOD and DC+1 defense) normal attacks at the same DC. More an issue for advantages of killing attack than Barrier, perhaps, but easily fixed by boosting that max. I also wonder how Barrier compares against Entangle with those limits. Barrier could cover a broader area, Entangle seems vastly superior dealing with any target with a Focus. This perhaps makes Barrier used primarily as larger area attacks, and if that's the desired result, this restriction probably helps a lot.

 

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 have cut the price of DEX to 1. Going first + skill rolls seems comparable in value to skill rolls + PER rolls or skill rolls + PRE attacks and defenses. Skill levels for DEX skills get similarly reduced.

 

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

Yes, and I've seen this many times. It was a classic move to use Stretching, Indirect, and TK in this fashion.

 

Of course, if I had such a power in real life, I would do the same thing. In genre fiction, characters with such powers often do so as well.

 

The ability to do these things is part of the utility of those Powers. It's why "direct only" is a limitation for stretching, why the different grades of Indirect fixate around direction and origin, and part of why TK is worth its high cost.

 

It may not be "fair" in a queens rules put up your dukes and fight sense, but mechanically it worked out pretty well, IME. Reacting to and working around such a tactic also presents some interesting combat challenges and can make combat more interesting.

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.

If a particular character _always_ does this, then that's pretty predictable and opponents can find ways to neutralize such a repetitive and unimaginative threat.

How without the use of other powers or talents to compensate?

Sure. If you were fighting an opponent who was already committed to something and couldn't react, would you hit them straight on, or slip around and strike at their wide open back? Maybe throw a rear naked choke of some kind on them. Maybe go for the kidneys. Or maybe the back of the knees. Or maybe throw a knee into the base of their spine. Or an elbow drop on the back of the neck. It's such a nice big open target area with so many options, why wouldn't you go for it if the opportunity presented itself?

 

In 4e and 5e a creditable infighting character would have Defense Maneuver to protect themselves from this sort of tactic.

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.

I usually agree with you, but not on this one.

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?

Quick note: that was a stated 5 PD natural, and not counting Armor... so I don't think that it's that terrible of a situation.

 

Next: Is it a house rule if it's in the core book?

 

 

As I said, Hero is much more about modeling the game that you want... that's actually why we are having this conversation. Both styles are Hero, by Hero's rules, because you are asked to model your world the way you see it... D&D doesn't have that design theory... it's static.

 

IE (an example):

D&D rules for falling= X and only X. If you want to change it, you are deviating from the rules, thus making a house rule.

Hero rules for falling= X, or if you'd rather= Y, or how about=Z, but whatever you do, make sure you are doing it the way that you see fit...

 

The golden rule of RPG's (if you don't like it, change it) is hard-coded into Hero (very few things are a solid concrete effect. There is no lightning, there is no drowning, there is no falling, there is no anything that you don't approve of before the game is set, that's also why there are two different ways a character even interacts with many rules (heroic and superheroic) because it's all in flux until you add a GM)... because you really only have the framework for a system, and then tons of parts that you can manipulate to make the system whole.

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.

I'll agree with you there, if you have a few moments to recover from a fall, they are about equal, what I was referring to was if there was a few baddies on the other side of said fall.

The Hero Character is probably Con stunned, and will need to take a segment to recover from that, counting the segment that he used to make the fall (if there was one used by him) that's now 2, then he may want to use a recovery to get back some stun, depending on how serious the threat from said baddies might be. That's some heavy time taken out, and even some serious loss of resources with his stun being down a chunk... whereas the D&D fighter is down some HP, and has no other actions necessary, except to maybe pull himself up off the ground (something our Hero character would have to do also).

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.

yah, for whatever reason I forgot the 2 CSL's required to buff a DC, over the single... I don't know if I've even looked at the description since Hero 4th (not suggesting it was that way in fourth, I just am saying it's been a bit since I looked at it).

 

Secondly a fighter by the rules can only spec. once. (second ed Zeb rule book, granted 3.x has blown this out of the water, but... well... yah, I argue that the power level is at best "out of control" in that edition anyway, though it is sometimes fun to be that wildly powerful, still that's rangeing into the Supers level encounters closing on 5th level, especially if your using Pathfinder rule set for 3.x.)

I don't know the mage you are referring to, and I know you mentioned "her" in your previous post... I'll take your example, but I know absolutely nothing about what she is capable of, so that example is lost on me in it's entirety.

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.

Yah, I think your either using the brown books or the 2.5 optional stuff from combat and tactics, which are fun, but not core. In the core rule book it's pretty clearly stated (however the brown books later re-state it in such a way as to counter the core book, and the 2.5 stuff went in a different direction totally) in the main rule book that a Fighter is the only one who can specialize and he can only do that with one weapon, so I've modeled a D&D fighter fairly well. Only a paladin or someone wielding that hammer of hammers has a +5 weapon, otherwise they cap at +4, so you have one shot at a pc being able to randomly roll that hammer if he's a fighter, and he's not specializing if he's a Pally. So I think your numbers are a using some optional rules, and some house rules. Girdles and Gauntlets are also a fairly rare random "drop," so there is some hope in that happening, about as much as actually rolling a number (using the suggested first rolling method) high enough to score any bonuses on your str. I think it's quite a long shot and some pretty broad assumptions that put the fighter where you're looking at him, but again, different groups did different things, and if anyone walked on to our table with someone with that kinda swag (even at 20th) he'd be laughed into making a new one... D&D 2nd ed was much about making due with limited resources, even at high levels. Every battle a stretch, Every victory hard won... sweating from 1-20... Great stuff. Stuff that the new game just gives you so much padding to keep from having a rough fight.

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.

I ran a game in 4th ed Hero based on the Disney's Gargoyles cartoon off an on for a while, it was a pretty good game, all in all... well received. In it we had a beat cop, and I think he came in under 100 points, some supernaturals moving from about 200-400 points, and even an fallen angel, who stood neutral to the war in the heavens and he came in just over 1,000 points... they could all participate in combat equally. Granted though, if the cop and the angel went head to head, with all limiters removed (I granted the angel such great power at the disadvantage that Human will had to be free, and he could not interfere with that in any way with all that ambiguity that comes with that disad) it would be ugly... but again, with the limiters on for the campaign, for the most part, the angel couldn't touch him... but I know that's a bit outside the limits of the conversation we are having.

I will agree with the term "generally", however, I do say if you have two characters who have equal CV's, equal DC's, and equal Defenses, equal Active Point caps, equal Dice caps, and equal stat caps then you probably have a closer fight; whatever the point totals are... generally. The question becomes, how easily are those caps met between the two characters... If they are so high that the 100 point character is struggling to match them, then yes, absolutely you are right, however if they are low enough that the 100 point character can reach them with a tightly controlled point budget, then I'd say it would probably be a closer game.

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.

That's really what I'm saying. You can't compare a 500 point "heroic" D&D character, to even a 300 point superheroic one. I'm saying that I don't buy that D&D is/ should be in the superheroic categories... Maybe 4th ed... heck, probably 4th ed. Maybe 3.X ed.... heck, around 5-10th level, depending on how you played it. Second ed... no way. Maybe some of the insane stuff from skills and powers, and the other 2.5 stuff... sure... Maybe... but 2nd core, na.

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.

lol, yah... You have been rep'ed.

Same here.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

I'm going to contest this one point.

 

HERO is, to me, always consistently balanced within the given genre and only if the GM puts some thought into AP limits and such.

 

Take Fantasy Hero. NCM on all characters, with some races maybe having a higher maximum due to package deals, etc. So you have your Conan clone barbarian; 8 PD, 20 BODY, 20 STR, 3d6k Greatsword, etc. He has reached the limit of a human so far as taking and dealing damage, remaining XP will go to skill levels, martial maneuvers, etc. Even with heavy armor (6 or 8 PD max for such a genre), a longsword - using hit locations especially - can still be very deadly to our hero. Even at 500 points he won't have been able to go much over the NCM if any - though he might be exceedingly difficult to actually hit, if he is hit, and takes BODY, he is as wounded at 500 points as he would have been at any other point level depending on at what point he bought his BODY up to 20.

 

Now in a Superheroic game, yes, a 100 point character (unless very, very specialized) is not going to fair well against a 500 point character, nor should they.

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?

The only house-rule I mentioned was the ignoring the "overcoming and obstacle" with D&D rules. Hero is based on modeling what you want... There are no rules for drowning, suffocation, etc. there is a suggestion for falling, but again, that's based in the core concepts, so we can model whatever we want and both call it core and house-rules, but since it's done within preview of the rules, then it's not a "true" house-rule, because nothing is being changed and the system is being followed.

In other words, do to the "hard lined" nature of D&D and the "table for everything" mentality, then it's very easy to have "house-rules," Whereas in Hero it's a much more slippery monster, because the core concept is that you model what you feel is appropriate, so again, the entire game is really made up of a structured "house-rule" format.

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.

Again, not house rules, In hero I'm simply mimicking what a fall does... as the system asks you to do... quite plainly actually (you can put on whatever armor, modern through ancient, and I guarantee you still won't want to take a 100' dive into pavement).

I said my Cap was 10, not that that's what most folks would have. In my games 10d6 would avg end up in about 5 body, and against a 10-15 body person, that's pretty nasty. Not to mention all the stun they'd end up taking... in which, they would be pretty shaken up (possibly even con-stunned), and they would NOT be at peak fighting condition, as they would in D&D... and even that 3 body, in Hero (not counting healing in either system) would take much longer than a comparable amount in D&D to heal, making it that much more threatening.

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.

I actually believe that the whole gamut of D&D runs in the Heroic Scale, up to 30+ levels. then you transfer to a Superheroic scale, and are finally challenging gods and what-not.

 

Superheroic vs Heroic represent a way in which characters interact with the system (knockback vs knockdown for example, ways in which push is used, there are more) there are suggestions on what points to use for each, but you can have a heroic scale game using 500 or even 10,000 points if you wanted to, and you can have superheroic games using 100 or even 50 points (though it's less entertaining going in that direction, it's none the less, possible).

 

With a 6 CV, a buff of +3 OCV for melee fighting, and 6 CSL's in Bastard sword you can model a fighter who can have a 12 OCV with his bastard sword, and a +1d6KA on his swings with it... all broken down propperly to the focuses in his training.

If he picks up a machine gun that was mysteriously transported, it all goes back to his base CV then subtracted by using a weapon he's unfamiliar with (itsn't it something like -2 or -3, haven't read those rules in a bit). So it models the entire situation pretty darn well.

It even mimics the "power attack" option as he takes a hit, down to 9 OCV with the sword to get a +2d6KA damage, or even buffs his OCV to a bloody 15 if he puts nothing additional into damage from the CSL's... again, I think that mimics a high level fighter pretty darn well... you can even naked advantage an autofire on there to represent a rapid attack that you get from D&D high level fighters.

 

Under that power build, there is no reason to assume that a mage has a high CV with "any weapon he/she picks up" (4CV, plus 5 OCV with combat spells, plus 4CSL's with "fire-magic" I think makes a pretty convincing mage, though I'd agree not such a good "combat mage" specifically. But if he picks up that sword, there is no way it's very functional for him, even if he does have a prof.) But that's how I generate characters for my game, not house-rule, just my way of doing Hero, all by the rules.

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.

1&2 scaled wonderfully, I don't know how you came up with 1...

AC did top out at -10, and a fighter at 20 (without an insane strength, remember you didn't start getting buffs to things until after a stat of 16, and I think for str that only gave you damage, but no to-hit buff... so looking at it your average fighter (and remember, magic items really didn't go above +4 unless you were a paladin or had a specific hammer).

To hit= thac-o (20) minus AC (-10)= 10 minus 4 (for your plus weapon) 6+ to hit.

Now if your a strait fighter you "may" have specialized, and that can modify, along with higher str... And I'll admit that's pretty good, but still, your a fighter... No one else has it that easy in this edition.

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).

A 500 or 10,000 point character still has to abide by your campaign limits... I set my stats at 20, double cost for up to 30 (admittedly this is a house rule, and is dealt with in a side bar in 6th edition). My Active point limit is at about 60, and my CVs stop at 8, my Dice cap is at 15, etc... the points put into the character don't matter in terms of what limits your GM puts on things.

 

And that's what I'm referring to. In terms of "the max," in certain things you can reach it quickly, but the breadth of the two characters... options, skills, etc. is much different. The 100 point character is far more focused than the 500 point character.

 

The Harbinger of Justice is a perfect example, he's got an immense amount of points, but blow for blow there are quite a few characters in Champions who can wipe the floor with him, and most are under his point total by a good measure. That's all I'm saying with that statement.

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.

Again, very much in agreement. I hope you take this as me speaking in conversational levels, I'm in no way meaning to be argumentative with these posts, I understand at it's core it's one of those, my opinion vs yours and I don't (in anyway) want you to think that I undervalue that specific thing, I think you probably have your own experiences and preferences that have led to you gaming and viewing your games as richly rewarding for you, much as mine have for me, otherwise, how would we still be able to do this as older than highschooler aged folks... lol. And in the end, we learn something of the community in the end... maybe even get a glimpse of a different perspective.

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?

Not to jump on you here Gary' date=' but I have some responses to a few of these. Again, I know much of this is personal preference, and for the most part to each their own...[/quote']

 

I was comparing Hero in general to D&D 3.5 in general. If you want to throw house rules to make the experience better for yourself, then that's fine. It does become very awkward though, to compare D&D base rules to your house rules.

 

This one I've seen ignored by most of the games that I've gotten in on in 3rd ed. Most of the kids who have started gaming with 3.x think that it's a stupid rule that you can somehow "get over" on a fight by trying to navigate through the encounter.

 

I even had a fighter at one point, who went through his entire first "introductory adventure" getting around folks, and overcoming the challenges, but never once did I roll to attack, or have to declare my AC. I was told that I got no XP but that it was an entertaining game. I brought up the "just defeat the challenge" argument, and was told that it was a rule that "no one pays attention to" and promotes playing the game wrong. So far, the people who I know who pay attention to that are in the extreme minority.

 

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.

 

For Supers, sure. However in any Heroic scale Game I run, from 40- 500 points, if someone can survive a 100 foot fall with "little to no Body" then I'm doing something wrong as a GM. I usually cap the defenses (personal, Fall is a NND that doesn't matter if you've got full plate on, you're still squishy when it comes to gravity) around 10 (meaning most folk have around a 5-7), and don't much let it go higher than that for a Heroic level thing.

 

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.

 

Again, if properly built (reason from effect) then a person's "natural" CV should be at most (again for a Heroic Scale game) 6, and that's for a person who seems to be born to weld a weapon. Everything else is either focused CV (OCV bought for weapons/spells) or CSL's representing experience, and not natural talent.... IE Skills, not Stats.

 

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.

 

LOL, honestly, I've never seen a writeup for a shield in Hero, odd that, I kinda just realized that... Anyway, my writeup for shields are a multipower that has three slots (at least); one for DCV buff (when you want to use it as a device that deflects), one for PD/ED (when you turn the shield and use it to buffet a straight attack, and block with it), and the last one as a shield bash type attack slot). There are other slots one can gain, of course, such as the bonus to OCV (only vs. Blocks, limited Grabs cannot follow) and other such things as that... but I've never used them as a straight buff to DCV.

 

Shields throughout the life of Hero System have been build as +DCV.

 

Yah, I agree with this for the most part... I've had decent luck with AC being pretty stacked against to-hit rolls.. I think that D&D did a huge disservice to itself when it let it's attack/defense leave a static table though. I prefer the old Thac-0, and the fact that attacks and defenses had a beginning, middle, and end point. I think it kept things much better balanced than what we've got now.

 

I also like that Hero has the same thing, but it's far more variable... but basically the 3-18 roll within the (OCV+11)-DCV keeps the same sort of boxed static table, if you will, that makes it less (though not infallible) to twinkage.

 

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.

 

 

I also dig armor that absorbs, but historic armor did definately do a better job at deflecting than it did at absorbing... so it's a wash here for me...

 

Especially helmets which were usually angled to deflect a blow.

 

Again, that depends, you can have a 500 point character built under limitations within the Heroic scale, that still can't have DC's exceeding 9... and 100 point characters who's DC's can exceed 23, so I think it's a wild assertion to assume that every game would be like that. Sure in a supers, but much of your standard fantasy gaming isn't based on the superheroic scale.

 

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.

 

Actually, I know someone (who might even be reading this right now) who most definitely thinks that 3.5 wizards are severely underpowered, even as they stand.

 

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.

 

Granted, no system is perfect, and the more expertise that a person has with a system allows him to manipulate the system better, thus some people run better games in some systems than in others can.

 

However, the reason that some folks like one system over another is because what they want to see is modeled better by that different system. I thought of all those things that wrote up there when I read your post, and so for me, the "flaws that most game systems struggle with" as you put it (if your examples above are part of that case for you) just don't seem to exist in Hero for me, because of how I used the system. Obviously, you use the system a tad different than I do, and that's fine, heck that's one of the awesome benefits of Hero; everyone can kinda "do it" a bit differently.

 

For me Hero answered much of these issues, in how you can manipulate the system... in D&D, you Can't unless you start house-ruling.. and that gets messy in 3.x just due to how bloody interconnected the rules are... you'll find something that you never thought of because you changed this rule over here, and now the whole bloody system is out of sorts... grr...

[end tiny rant, that wasn't (at least this last paragraph) aimed at Gary, and to that extreme, I wasn't intending to "aim" at Gary, just respond with my 2 copper using my thoughts.]

 

Yep. Everything in the end boils down to personal preference.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD?

Why is it that in order to be a master crafts man (Expert 20th level) you have to kill stuff to earn experience in your craft?

You don't have to kill stuff. Just defeat the challenge. A craftsman's challenge will obviously be different from a fighter's.

Why can a fighter of any respectable level do a swan dive off of a 100' high cliff rather than waste the time climbing down... stand up... dust himself off and go kill a couple hundred kobolds and walk away with only minor injuries?

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.

Why is it that a 5th level fighter who is specialized in an exotic weapon is actually worse at using it than any 20th level magic user who has probably never even laid a hand on the weapon?

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.

Why are shields so worthless? Anyone who has actually trained with a weapon and shield know that the shield is the piece of armor that soaks up almost every single hit you would otherwise have taken. It's should certainly be worth more than a +1 to AC.

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.

Speaking of armor by the time you are of a level that you are facing high level fighters and monsters you might as well not wear armor at all because similar to saving throws BAB and to hit bonuses grow faster than your AC does.

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.

I hate the fact that armor effects your ability to be hit rather than soaking damage

Just personal preference.

I hate that you gain hit points every level... It plays like a video game and makes it so a long sword is deadly at first level but by the time you get to 5th or 6th level taking a sword hit is no big deal.

Same in Hero. A 500 pt character is going to laugh at attacks that strike fear into 100 pt characters.

I hate that Saving throws out strip spell DCs so that by the time you reach 10th level you might as well give up casting spells that have a save because your opponent will almost assuredly pass.

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

After which, it will also play the game for you to save you the effort of being involved.

 

- Klaus

http://progressquest.com/

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #2: New Combat Maneuvers; Objects As Weapons

One thing I just noticed. Entangle has separate PD/ED. Can PD/ED be bought up separately for the entangle?

I'm a little concerned with the prospect of someone using his 60 pt Entangle multipower slot to purchase a 15 PD/ 1 ED/ 4d6 Entangle and use specifically vs the many people without an Energy attack.

Re: Hero System 60th Edition

I was personally ticked off when I heard they were removing the Stun Exponent from Killing Attacks from 60th Ed. But then I heard they replaced it with the Stun Factorial for Killing Attacks. I am happy.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

I disagreed a while back - even pointing out that we like the options.

Disagreement is fine. All of us get that a lot on these boards. It's possible to do so politely.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

The polite thing to do is to disagree without the snark. Like Archermoo.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Obviously' date=' we'll have to slap the Iron Will Guy with a 50 Point Tax for buying less Characteristics than Mentalist Man!!![/quote']

 

What was the purpose of that statement?

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Which makes it a potentially interesting exercise, but not overly useful.

 

Particularly since you only concentrate on one small area of what has been released. It makes sense to me that someone who wants their OCV, DCV, OMCV and ODCV all to be high should be paying more points than someone who is only interested in having 3 out of those 4 high. So it doesn't particularly concern me if the "Mentalist who is also an ace in physical combat" is at a point disadvantage compared to "Non-Mentalist who is an ace in physical combat and hard to hit mentally". And if the mentalist doesn't have as high an OCV and/or DCV, the difference in points spent goes down pretty quickly.

Obviously I'm focusing on 1 small area. 6E is far too broad to encapsulate in 1 post.

It'd be interesting to see if the 6E mentalist is balanced with the 6E iron will guy.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Dude. That's not the only thing to consider with mentalists in any case. Has everyone bought super high DMCV? If not' date=' Super Mental Defense Guy is going to be getting the Beat Down from his ally the Hulkster in no time....[/quote']

 

Doesn't have to be everyone. Just a significant increase in the numbers would skew balance.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

But out of context to the rest of the changes being made in 6e it is meaningless.

Yep, I'm working with incomplete information. However, that's the only info that's been released so far.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Sure. However' date=' MD costs half as much as PD/ED, and mental attacks also do half as much damage, so proportionately MD costs 1/4 as much as PD/ED. Unless DMCV also costs 1/4 as much as DCV, MD is relatively much more tempting. Note that, depending on the cost of ACV (vs DMCV and PD or ED), this math may change.[/quote']

 

Only Ego Attack costs twice as much. The rest of the mental attacks have similar costs. And while mental defense helps vs the +30 level, it's hard to purchase enough to stop a +10. Whereas not being hit solves that problem quite nicely. Also you're right. The cost of ACV must be factored in and we don't have that info.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

True' date=' but unless DMCV costs 2 or less or the game has a lot of attacks vs DMCV and non-mental defenses I doubt people will buy up DMCV anyway, mental defense is generally a better investment, and that's not really a change from 5e.[/quote']

 

Not necessarily. For the same reason people buy DCV instead of PD/ED. Often it's just better not to be hit in the first place rather than reducing damage. It depends on where on the bell curve the attack is taking place.