doccowie

Thanks dsatow, that's an interesting way to look at it ?

Re mind control - a grand mal fit is not something you can induce voluntarily just because you are mind controlled. It is a physical process. Obviously you can mind control someone to mimic a seizure ("Lie on ground, do not respond to or remember external stimuli, thrash around"). I'm interested at what point we see the extent of mind control to force modifying autonomic functions? Can you tell people to cease breathing until they pass out? Slow and stop their heart? Would it make a difference if someone had studied the yogic arts (certainly they seem to be able to slow and speed up their heart while meditating)? Practically speaking a Mind Control +30 is already taking someone out of a fight until they break out , so I suppose it is a bit theoretical :-)

I think this is a classic HERO reality vs game effect issue. Describing a grandmal seizure in pathological terms, it sounds like a pretty easy thing to set off - all you need is a small electrical charge across the brain, which compared to the level of physics altering powers that heroes are hurling about, sounds pretty straightforward, right? The problem is that quite a few areas of the body are equally vulnerable to small changes - increasing the pressure on a couple of arteries in the brain will either give you an ischaemic stroke or a haemorrhage depending on how you do it. Running an electric current across the heart may well throw it into fibrillation. Altering a few of the components of blood can cause all sorts of problems very fast. Etc, etc. So, it is easy to be seduced by something that sounds simple, but has a big game effect. HERO works on a points for effect basis, not a points for clever use of mystic energies on areas of physiological weakness. Ultimately, it's not a medical degree you need, it's a clear idea of the effect you want to happen in game, a HERO rulebook and a chat with your friendly GM. (All the above ideas seem sensible, I particularly like the mental entangle + linked END and/or STUN drain.)

In terms of "cheese", I suspect that OIF, Real Armour, and Normal Mass is laying it on a bit thick, even allowing for removal of expendability. You are looking at base 1 3/4 limitation, which is basically telling the GM that this power will be about a third as useful as one without the limitations (OK, 4/11 as useful :-) So, for this to be worth the limitations, every single power should be unavailable to you (for whatever reason) say, half the time; and less useful than anticipated at others. Is that what you are looking for? (With armour that is particularly risky.) I think the "normal mass" is the stand out issue - how does that limit you? Why is it worth -1 limitation in the campaign? Real armour at -1/4 allows for it to be broken etc, and is usually OK (in fact given the hassle it causes it may be worth more than that - it basically allows the GM to mess with you in a whole bunch of ways that characters who use "superhero" armour don't have to put up with.)

Never met him, but always appreciated his posts. A real loss to Hero.

Och, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. 45 pts 8/8 vs AP, 51pts 11/11 vs AP, 56 pts 15/15 vs AP. I'm sure there is a breakpoint that is slightly more efficient, but ultimately you can pay an extra 6pts to get an extra 3 pts armour against AP, or an extra 11 to get 7 more? As always it depends on the campaign (there are A LOT of 4d6-1 standard effect RKAs?), but otherwise this looks a lot less twinky than an awful lot of "legal" purchases. YMMV, obviously, and added complexity is a perfectly reasonable reason to enforce the RAW.

No, of course you could do that! It's just that when you calculate DCV or see it in previous supplements you will be adding 10 every time, it just seemed easier to us to clarify we'd be adding ten every time. On the other, that's us being path dependent again, we were using lots of previous stat blocks. And you're right, when we asked what DCV was we used to say either "6+10" or "16". So actually writing 16 on the sheet makes sense :- )

Grrr, I worry I have been insufficiently clear. Here is the system that we have used in the past: Skills: You buy skills at (STAT/5) -2 [or just subtract 11 from standard stat blocks]. So, 11- = 0, DEX 18 gives Acrobatics +2. Skill levels just add as you would expect. We don't use Familiarity - if you don't have the skill but you can persuade the GM that your background deserves it you can always roll at -3. Target number is usually 10. Easy might be 7-9. Tricky 11-13 Hard 14-16 Very Hard 17-19 Impossible 20+ This gives the same chance of success as the standard roll up to and including the -10 modifier (target numbers getting higher as it gets more difficult, in the same way that penalties on standard rolls get higher) [Acrobatics+2 would mean you need to roll an 8 or higher to succeed on a normal challenge, exactly the same chance as rolling a 13 or less; or need to roll an 18 on an impossible task, exactly the same as rolling a 13- at -10 to the roll] Opposed skills (say Stealth vs PER) either both roll, add skill level and highest wins, or use a target number of defenders skill level +10 Combat: Roll OCV+3d6, target number is DCV+10. So, absolutely no change in maths or chances of success, it just seems more elegant (IMveryHO, YMMalmostcertainlyV)

Oh, PS - looking at your suggestion, it appears that if you have a skill of 14- that would translate to a +3. If you use 11 as the target that means you would need to roll an 8 on 3d6. To get the same odds of success as rolling a 14 or less on 3d6, you would need to roll a 7 or more. To get the same probability you should subtract 11 and have a target number of 10. Or subtract 10 and have a target number of 11 :-) Hero defaults to an 11- being a success (this is the skill level of someone with a stat of 10, or the target number when OCV and DCV are equal). That is a bit above 50%, your model means people will tend to fail at skills and attacks a bit more frequently. Apologies for geekiness, but that's why we're here, right?

This has definitely been discussed before. Switching the system round to 3d6+ "skill"+"factors" vs "target number" is probabilisticly identical*, and (YMMV) can end up being more elegant. Ultimately it's an example of path dependence. I cannot imagine anyone would suggest the current system if HERO were to be designed now, any more than anyone would believe a QWERTY keyboard was the optimal layout. But due to backwards compatibility and transferable skills between games it ain't going to change officially, though there are several examples of groups that use systems similar to what you advise. *3d6 vs 1d20 actually changes the probability curve - makes skill levels less important etc etc. So, this is a bigger change than the original suggestion.

I think I definitely misunderstand :- ) I'm away from my rulebook, so possibly missing something obvious here. So, without the "Time Limit" limitation, if I activate the Claw! then switch the VPP to another power I lose the Claw! - correct? But with this "limitation" I can have the Claw! AND another power? I really don't see how Time Limit can be a limitation except (as you say) where initiating the power requires a lot of hassle (Extra Time, END etc) and where without the Time Limit this would just be a constant ongoing power. But then, the idea of Constant or Persistent powers that take loads of limitations on initiation, then remain on indefinitely is problematic in itself! As a GM would you be happy if a character had a bunch of extra characteristics and constant powers with "Extra Time (1 hour, only to initiate) -3/4, Gestures and Incantations (only to initiate)-1/4" What if the character only had to cast the ritual once a year, say? In this case I can see Time Limit reducing the abuse potential, but potentially making things worse - if I put "Time Limit 1 day" on all the powers in my VPP what is to stop me having multiple constant powers running simultaneously?

Absolutely. By taking limitations you are telling the GM you want them to be a factor. And by taking the second limitation you are expecting your power to cause problems or be non-functional about twice as often as someone who just takes IIF, or OIHID. Maybe about a third of the time, or one in three encounters rather than one in five for IIF. Comparing with a character without the limitation - a character can have PD/ED 8 with no limitations, PD/ED 10 with IIF, or PD/ED 12 with IIF/Extra Time. The GM has to ensure that none of the three choices are obviously better than the other, and that all players are equally happy with their choice.

You can certainly buy Major (or even Severe) Transform, and state that the way to fix it does not include normal healing - you transform the victim into a creature that has only one arm and one stump. There is nothing to "heal" back, any more than I can "heal" an extra arm on to myself. Or Transform to affect characteristics - so the victim's base STUN is 10; you could be Aided, but not Healed. Now, if the methods to reverse the Transform are very obscure, then I can certainly see a case for an advantage, but if this is a villain the point cost becomes less significant anyway.

Awesomely creative approach! Fie on the Extradimensional Space power! In fact, I wonder if we can use Extradimensional Movement and Transform (with appropriate advantages and limitations) to duplicate every power in Hero?

"If that 1 metre per second locomotive were hauling a train of 3000 tonnes, it would be the equivalent of the car hitting you at 40 metres per second, or 144 kph. That's not survivable without superpowers." The issue is more the kinetic energy required to accelerate the impactee to the new combined speed of the impacting object/impactee (and how that is transferred across the body) rather than the inherent kinetic energy of the impacting object. It's not like the train shudders to a halt when it hits you transferring its entire energy. Except when you are Superman and it does, but that is a whole 'nother physics question. Thus the falling issue - me falling 1m and hitting the earth is indistinguishable from the earth moving 1m and hitting me (relativity, right?).*. So, I'm with massey on this one, a train weighing 2500 tons moving at 1m/s doesn't do the same damage as a 1 ton van at 50m/s. *I suspect (not an expert) that many of the injuries at low speeds are caused by impacts transferring the energy over a low surface area (like a landing on a spike), or running people over, or tearing injuries?