DangerousDan

Re: Ghostly Possession

Yup, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I thought of that. The corpse-to-dust end result is not what I had in mind, though. I may still fall back on it, but, for now, I want to try to stick to the original picture.

As I see it, treating the corpse as an expendable focus does not necessarily mean that it must be destroyed by use, but does mean that you cannot use it again. Under this interpretation, when you stopped possessing a corpse, it would simply collapse. However, once you released it, you would never be able to reposess that specific body. As with anything, this requires GM approval.

Re: how to do it: strength effect lingers after moving

would it be no range?

 

does the uncontrolled make it so that it would be no range when he placed it but then he could walk away?

Yes, once activated, an uncontrolled power continues, even if the activating character doesn't. The character can walk away, turn his back, go to sleep, even die (although the last is not recommended).

Re: UV vision

If you watch the inumrable CSI spinoffs you'll see a passel of uses for UV vision' date=' it lets you spot things that are invisable in the normal spectrum, but are florecent in UV...for example, no one knows why...but all scorpions are florecent in UV......so use it as a mobile forensic tool, called "my cool sense" to spot chemical traces and stuff like that....[/quote']

 

This isn't an example of UV vision, but of Images, only to create UV light.

 

Seeing things that fluoresce when exposed to UV light uses normal vision, not UV vision. UV vision would allow one to see the UV reflecting off of things that do not fluoresce. You might notice that the UV light sources the CSIs carry have an orange piece of plastic that the CSI looks through. This blocks the UV light from reaching the CSI's eyes.

 

Having (passive) UV vision enable characters to see in the dark is an arbitrary game mechanic that has little relation to reality. In the real world, there is a large amount of UV in daylight sunshine, but very little UV at night even with full moonlight. All fluorescent lights emit some UV, and flames do as well. Bloodstone is quite right in pointing out that UV vision that could allow one to see at night would be useless in daylight.

 

Also' date=' if your eyes are adapted to actully see at night via passive UV vision you should be completly blinded by normal sunlight. Unless you have away to shut it off of course. For example, while some animals and insects can see into the UV spectrum, they cannot use it to see at night.[/quote']

 

Odd note: years ago, my family had a circular fluorescent light in the kitchen ceiling that would not start unless there was a minimum amount of UV light shining on it. At night, you could turn the switch and wait in the dark for hours. Shine a bright flashlight directly on the bulb and you got nothing. Run the toaster oven at full power, and still you got nothing. But light a burner on the stove or strike a match or light a cigarette lighter and the lamp would spark right up.

Re: House Rules Revisited

I got this one from Amadan na Briona:

 

Variable Power Pool:

The Control Cost is half the Active Points any power can have.

The Pool Cost is the total number of Real Points worth of power you can have.

 

The palindromedary likes that rule.

I like that too. But then again, I also don't because I can see some potential problems.

Let us start with a Control Cost for 300 point powers, costs 150 points. Add -1 in limitations and you get a 75 point real cost. Add a pool cost of 133, and you've spent 208 cp to get any 300 pts of power with a (particular?) -1 1/4 limitation.

The standard VPP would cost 375 cp. Keeping the pool cost tied to the active point cap for the powers insures that you pay for what you get. IMHO, VPPs are currently the most powerful and flexible mechanic in the game as they are now. Making them more powerful, more flexible and less expensive is a move for devaluing everything that isn't a VPP in favor of the VPP.

Re: How can I do THIS?

Quoth the Raven

Sounds like it just means those characters have a ready-made explanation for being able to spend XP on exotic powers. At most, a small Talent or Perk.

As a rule (that for the most part' date=' goes unsaid and usually has no need to be written down), no player in any game I'm running will have to spend points just so they can spend points.[/quote']

I have to side with both of you here. Being able to spend XP on skills or knowledge possessed by something you ate is a Talent, but it is a zero-point one. Easily paid for with a zero-point Disadvantage.

Re: Wisdom

You're point is well taken' date=' but this example, I'd call more a lack of Intelligence than lack of Wisdom. It shows a lack of abstract thinking, problem solving, and tool using skills.[/quote']

I've played with people who had enough Intelligence to earn a college degree, but enough lack of wisdom to pick the worst course of action astonishingly often.

 

My point was that although many of the things that have been proposed in this thread allow one to play a character that is wiser than the player, there are limits. You can include Deduction, Tactics, and one or more Overall levels among the things that can help make a character appear more wise.

 

I occasionally play characters that make foolish decisions, but at least they know that the decisions are foolish {see http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/forums/showthread.php?p=686468#post686468 for example}

Re: Wisdom

I've seen worse. I've had a player insist on performing non-combat speed Move Throughs against targets in HTH. When she said "full speed" she made it unquestionable clear she meant non-combat, even referring to her extra non-combat multiples and total inches/phase....

And she kept doing it!

I actually got a result with that technique once, but it was a sort of desperation move against an opponent that seemed to be able to shrug off the biggest attack I could deliver. Result: Double KO with lots of KB. Both of us were resilient enough to get back into the fight before the GM stopped using phases. It took one potent opponent out of the fight for several phases, though.

Re: Optional Rule: Continous (Breakdown)

I may very well agree with you that Continuous is too expensive' date=' especially for certain applications, like Damage Shield (Whoops! I said I wasn't going to start up that debate. ), but for most "regular" applications, like a plain old attack power, not having to keep rolling to-hit every phase is a significant advantage, and probably is worth the full +1.[/quote']

I have to agree that not having to keep rolling to-hit every phase is worth the full +1.

Re: Optional Rule: Continous (Breakdown)

I don't think that's the case. If you Drain power from someone with a MP slot, he doesn't gain back all his points immediately when you switch to a different slot. But even if it is the case, you're saying that the benefit of +1/2 "constant" is to give you the eligibility to buy Uncontrolled, but gives no benefit by itself.

It appears that everything I knew about combining Adjustment powers, Constant and Uncontrolled is wrong:

I was certain that that switching from an Aid slot in a framework caused the effect to dissapate immediately. But now, when I look at it, the rule says that when you switch away from an adjustment slot, the effect fades as normal and doesn't disappear instantly.

I also remember that applying Aid to one target causes the effect to disappear from the previous target, but I cannot find that one either.

A 4th edition rules stated "A variable Adjustment Power may only add to one type of Characteristic or Power at a time. For example, if a variable Aid is used to add to a character's Strength, and then the variable Aid is switched to add to the character's Endurance, the Aided Strength fades immediately."

This text has disappeared from the fifth edition.

The only instant fade I can find in FRED is that if a slot or power in a Multipower or VPP is aided and the character switches away from that slot, the benefit of the aid is lost immediately and doesn't come back when switching back to the slot or power.

Switching away from a slot that receives Aid is quite different than switching away from a slot that supplies Aid. Apparently, I had them confused. However adjustment effects that reduce a slot are specifically stated as remaining.

Re: Supernatural Special Forces

Isn't that what the two guys on Supernatural do? I've only ever seen two episodes' date=' but I remember shotguns loaded with rock salt being used against ghosts (well, a ghost and a tulpa, to be precise).[/quote']

The episodes I remember them using shotguns in, the shotguns were loaded with rock salt. No silver, iron, oak or lead.

 

How could I forget the old standby against vampires: the solid wood slug. Rapid delivery system for the ol' stake in the heart.

Re: House Rules Revisited

The Normal Person Doctrine

Anything a normal (non-heroic, non-superheroic, essentially, a 0-point person) in the campaign world can have, a PC can have for free - for no character points. This includes several things:

One or more "Bases" that are just normal houses or otherwise ordinary buildings.

One or more ordinary "Vehicles" - a normal car, motorcycle, even a boat or a plane.

A basic rule of thumb is: if it has weapons on it, you have to pay for it.

But if it's just fancy, it doesn't have to cost points. Although the Money Perk might be required to own a huge (but normal) mansion, yacht, etc. And of course, what is normal depends on the genre. In a modern setting, anyone can have a car. In a future scifi setting, everyday normal people might have a small personal space vehicle. In a fantasy setting, you could have normal horse or a mule-drawn cart, etc.

One of the groups I'm in has a long-running superhero game with this house rule. Most of the characters have cell phones and a car or a motorcycle, and use them during our superhero adventures. Two characters have neither. One is too small to carry a phone or operate a vehicle, and the other has a sufficiently flexible VPP not too need one.

Another rule of thumb is that if the thing significantly exceeds ordinarily available capabilities, you have to pay for it. If your cell phone or car or base is bulletproof, you pay for it with character points. Sure, bulletproof cars can be bought with money, but you can't just go down to the dealership and buy one off the lot. If your vehicle never gets stuck in traffic, you pay for it. If your cell-phone's camera has a zoom lens or microscopic setting or infrared or night-vision, pay points.

Re: Wisdom

Lotsa good suggestions for how to do it, so I won't bother, but I just wanted to chime in on the side of "It should be do-able" with game mechanics.

 

You can play a tatical genius, a ladies man, or a burly warrior if you aren't one in real life, so why not be able to play someone wiser than yourself?

If you inevitably make foolish decisions, so will your character. There is no game mechanic that I've ever seen in any game to keep your lack of wisdom from showing through. Contrived example to follow.

GM: "You know that the creature is supremely sensitive to sound. In one hand, you have a tuning fork that is out of tune with itself, and in the other, you have a striker for the tuning fork. What do you do?"

: "Shove the tuning fork up its nose!"

Re: House Rules Revisited

Something I recently house ruled was on movethrough "followup". By the book' date=' the attacker can choose to ride along with the knockback, no matter how far that is.[/quote']

Never saw this, can't find it in FRED, wouldn't use it if I did, unless it had something to do with Move-through.... Ah, there it is. Nope, still wouldn't use it.

Didn't make sense to me, so I house ruled that the max you could ride along is up to the remainder of your movement. (ie if you have 15" flight and spend 12" getting to the target, the most you can travel along is another 3", even if the KB was 30")

 

Being able to dramatically increase your speed (not SPD) by move-throughing strategically placed opponents ("Hmm...I'll move my full 15" to this guy, and move through...7"KB, great, now I can move 15" to that guy, move through him...oh good roll, 10" KB...now I can get to X two phases earlier!") didn't seem like it fit with my admittedly limited grasp of how physics works.

Nothing wrong with your understanding of physics.

The house rule in the houses I play in is that for a move through, you plan to hit your target(s) and choose which hex you stop in. That is where you end up, unless you hit and fail to even knock your target down, in which case you end up in the last hex before your target's. Having read the move-through rule, I think that you are as right as can be (for the game.)

 

In real physics, your position would be determined by your initial velocity, your mass, your target's mass, your target's initial and final velocities, and a few other things like coefficient of restitution. A real little guy who does one inch of knockback to someone the mass of a battleship could end up with many hexes of knockback back the way he came from. Bouncing off your opponent is not very super-heroic, even if it is realistic.

Re: Size Powers Question

I have my doubts about "Inherent". There are quite a few possible special effects for dispels or suppresses that don't care whether your ability is innate.

OTOH, Inherent is there for the special effects that don't care what power to attempt turn them off is.

For example, I've got a character that has Inherent Desolidification. No one can dispel, suppress or drain and thus turn its desolidification off because it has no mass (or gender, thus the "it").

Conceivably someone could transform it into a creature that does have mass, and thus no desolidification, but that is an altoghether different thing.

Re: Optional Rule: Continous (Breakdown)

What actual benefit do you gain by turning an Instant power into a Constant power? If I still have to spend END and make an attack roll every phase' date=' what am I getting for the +1/2?[/quote']

 

Well, for one thing, the Uncontrolled advantage requires a power to be constant.

When you use an adjustment power from a Multipower or VPP and later switch away from that slot, the benefits disappear instantly, but if the adjustment power is Uncontrolled, the benefits remain until they fade away. Right now, when you build an Uncontrolled Aid, you pay for making the power constant and for a "Target Lock" that you may or may not actually get to use.

 

In another case of required Continuous, a Damage Shield is required to be continuous. As built now, the Damage Shield always hits anyone that it can hit. If you want one that requires a to-hit roll, you add a limitation, but what value is the limitation? -1/4, -1/2, -3/4?

If the constant part of continuous was separated from the Target Lock, it would be trivial to build a damage shield that required a to-hit roll. It could cost more or fewer real points than the current construction, but it would be based on fewer active points, making it easier to use in frameworks.

 

I've run across other cases where constant is useful but the "Target Lock" is not. I occasionally feel that Continuous (+1) == Just to make it more expensive (+1) I know that this isn't the entire intent, because at least half of what you get when you buy continuous is use. It's just that sometimes the other half is thrown away, but you still have to buy it. IMNSHO

Re: Optional Rule: Continous (Breakdown)

Example:

Teleportation (Uncontrolled, Constant +1/2) - Teleport Room Trap

 

- Christopher Mullins

Well, since that is not useable by other or on other as an attack, the only person you can trap with it is yourself.

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

Normal Person PD/ED does not protect against the BODY damage done by a Killing Attack' date=' which is why it's deadlier in general.[/quote']

 

For me the shocker was that if you have zero defense against the BODY of a killing attack, you have no defense against the STUN of it either.

Re: Question from a non-Hero player

Ok, I've played lots of systems, and recently got into gurps just in time for it to go from 3e to 4 e. (Seriously, within a couple months of buying 3e and compendiums 4e was announced.)

 

 

 

I know and admit this is probably an unanswerable question, but how does hero compare to gurps, especially for science fiction style gaming? I love hard to medium SF and can stand space opera if it's good, and I like designing vehicles, starships, weapons, mecha, etc. I still think that gurps vehicles was the best RPG supplement I've ever had.

 

So given all this how does hero stack up to gurps? If someone can answer that I'd like to hear it. Also, is there a hero lite version of the rules, a'la gurps lite? That's one of the really good ideas gurps had, the gurps lite freebie.

 

 

I've always thought of hero as the champions system, but can it handle non superhero games OK? I've never played a hero system based game that I can recall asides from champions a long, long time ago.

I looked at gurps quite a while ago, but never played it, so I cannot give you a comparison. What I can tell you is that I'm in two partially overlapping groups that have used the Hero system for various levels of superhero games, flat out fantasy, horror, science fiction, and even spy/military ops games and it has worked out very nicely in almost every instance. I've built some Sci-Fi characters that I suspect would be difficult or impossible to create in gurps without waiving or creating a whole lot of new rules. A being of (im)pure energy from an alternate dimension, that can, nevertheless interact with people and the material world is expensive to create, but can be done without even bending a rule, much less breaking rules or writing new ones. And hey, if you can do that, a spaceship can't be that hard.

Re: Armor, damage conversion and stun

Here's an idea I've had that I mentioned on the gurps forum before the Sensitivity Squad (SS) started in on me, but maybe it'll work here due to hero's system.

 

I've always had a thing about rigid armor and impact in most games. Basically, if you're wearinf armor and get hit by a large impact attack, like, say a warhammer, the armor usually just reduces the damage you take in the game and that's that.

 

Well, in reality a simple rigid plate may reduce the damage you take somewhat from a hard impact, but you'll still get knmocked bck, down, etc because the kinetic energy of he impact comes thru anyway.

.....

The other night I had a low-powered superhero get shot by a minor minion. It was a 1d6 RKA which couldn't possibly do any BODY through my armor, but it did quite a bit of STUN, despite my armor. If it had been a little harder hit, it would have exceeded my CON, thus stunning me. If he'd been firing a light anti-tank weapon at me, I'd have probably been toast. This gets confusing because taking STUN and being stunned are two very different but related things.

The separation of damage into BODY and STUN naturally results in charcters that can be hurt by attacks that cannot kill them. There are other mechanics that allow you to build a character that is either impossible or nearly impossible to stun or knock unconscious. To paraphrase Warren Zevon, they'll sleep when they're dead.

Re: Couple of wierd power questions

1. Cling to Form: I agree with Lucius' date=' it's a plot device. As such though, it's not worth any points. Or worthy of being statted in my opinion. You said it's on an NPC (which itself makes the actual build for it unnecessary), but assume for a moment a player has asked for something like that for his character. Think about what happends, as far as game mechanics are concerned, when a player character dies. Well, the only "mechanic" that happens is that the player writes up a new character. In this case, the new character is strikingly similar to the original (because the soul was reborn into the body of a coma victim in a nearby hostpital) but doesn't quite have the same powers. Or he writes up a completely new character because his original is busy growing up because he was reborn into an infant and won't really be playable for a few decades in game. Would you really make someone pay points for the ability to write up a new character if his current one dies? I'm sure you wouldn't. The question is really what limits are on the [i']player[/i] when he writes up the new character?

If the new character bearing the old soul retains not only the old character's personality, but his memories as well, I'd at least make the new character pay for at least one knowledge skill related to the personal memories of the previous character, and I'd be quite disappointed if he didn't buy a significant portion of the previous character's skills. But the old character doesn't necessarily pay anything for this ability.

OTOH, I'd be quite disinclined to allow a character to achieve reincarnation or resurection in an alternate form so cheaply. I'm especially inclined to think this way since I decided that this was too cheesy for a character I created under 4th edition rules. (A werewolf that had died more than once before and come all the way back) Someone in our group had already built a character with a similar ability using Duplication. The Duplicate has Duplication, the duplicate of the duplicate has duplication,..., but there is never more than one duplicate up and about at any one time. My character has been played for several years and the ability has never been used. The character the power was initially applied to has died many times. This is a clunky and expensive build, but not nearly as cheesy as drawing up the same character over and over and pretending that it is a new one.

Fifth Edition has a Resurection adder for Healing, and there are ways to combine regeneration with other powers including Multiform to build the desired effect, but they are all undoubtedly subject to GM approval.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Exactly . . . I have a house rule called "the Metagaming Influence" which, in retrospect, was another of those mechanics I put into place which are really nothing more than a formalization of what every sane gaming group already does . . . but, I think I'll keep it as a rule, since I remember now why I did it: because of those rules lawyers who insist that you can't do anything if it's not explicitly spelled out in the book.

That brings up one of the things I like about the Hero system: there is a whole (small) chapter that gives you permission to change any of the rules. Essentially, even in a room full of rules lawyers, the GM is explicity the judge. The players can of course, overrule the GM by refusing to continue to play, or by choosing to play under a different GM.

The effect was to allow me, as GM, to over-rule any player in their description of the campaign world or of their character (or their character's actions), based on information that I had not made available to them before. The reason I called it the "Metagame Influence" rule was that this information could have been unknown to them either because I simply hadn't had a chance to tell them yet, or because the influences were due to some larger part of the world and the plot which was keeping itself secret (in other words "I know it doesn't make sense for these politicians to be acting like this, and I can't tell you whether it's because of pressure from above or something else, but that is how they're behaving; you'll just have to trust me on this, for now."), and naming it for the former wouldn't have resulted in nearly such a cool name

 

In the case of the former, the passing of time in-game would take a short break as I filled in the player on what they hadn't known, whereupon the player says something like "Oh, I wouldn't have done that if I had realized . . . " (when I've just revealed a difference from the situation that would be expected in the real world), and then we resume with some alteration of past actions, and the player proposes other actions after reconsidering, in light of the new information.

I've heard this called "Ret-conning" for retroactive con-something or other. Many GMs do something like this, but most of the people I know try to keep it to a minimum.

In the case of the latter' date=' my invocation of this rule would be my promise that, eventually, the reasons would become available later on as in-character knowledge. I deem this a good balance since, normally, "metaplot" reasons would only become available to the [i']players[/i]

 

 

 

I'm reminded of "Reno 911", with the LARP/tabletop gamers

Re: Heat of the Moment

Surprises about what your character is like lead to renewed curiosity' date=' to exploration and investigation. I see many ideas for character development being inspired by this.[/quote']

 

I agree with that sentiment, but it is never a problem I've often had. When I have difficulty deciding which of two actions my character will take, I'm not above choosing to roll dice to push the decision one way or the other. If I don't like the dice' decision, I choose the other option. If I don't like that one either, I decide not to decide. The technique works pretty well in real life too, with the toss of a coin instead of a dice roll.

Re: Heat of the Moment

On the other hand, at what point is it appropriate for the GM to state, "Your character's attitude/desire is ______" without the player's consent? Is it really any different to do it by die roll?

 

 

 

..., I don't think that randomly rolling for the character's attitudes is necessary for this. Pretty much every new character I create develops a lot of new detail in the first few sessions of play, and not all of it is what I would have expected. I've even had characters in stories I write behave in ways that I didn't initially intend, and there was no die rolling involved there.

 

Zeropoint

It is a fine thing for a player to choose to randomly roll dice to determine a character's attitude. It is quite another thing for the GM to insist on it without good reason.

Can a GM have good reason to require a dice roll? Certainly. For example: suppose a character feels he needs to stab himself with a knife. (devising such a reason is left as an exercise) Even if this is a decision easily made, it is not one easily carried out. A GM has good reason to require an EGO roll before allowing a character to carry out this decision.

Can a GM require a character who has a "Code Against Killing, Total" to make an EGO roll to snuff out the most evil villain he has yet met? Sure, because the player has already committed to that being a very difficult decision to make. If the character was "Reluctant to Kill, Moderate" it would be a far different thing.

Re: Heat of the Moment

K. But is the player fully welcome to say: "I know precisely what I would do here. I'm blowing his ****ing brains across the ****ing wall." Or, is he invited to say: "Now that I'm here... and I see how pathetic he is... I can't do it. I blast holes in his knee caps and crush his hands with the butt of my gun." Or. "I realize now I was wrong, he's right, I've lived my life in vain. Goodbye. - BOOM."

 

Any of those could be valid, in character choices. I reiterate, I understand what you're saying, and I can see (and have a player who) would sit there and hem and haw for thirty minutes deciding what his character would do. But I wouldn't force a roll on him.

In the middle of combat, no player should get a whole half hour to make a single decision. As a GM, I will after a significantly smaller period of time, conclude that the character is unable to decide (since the player can't the character obviously can't) and proceed with the next DEX rank. This is almost guaranteed to get a decision out of the player eventually. Occasionally, it is the villain's next action that spurs a choice.

As a player, if I'm that conflicted, I'll often try to make a decision, but if I cannot in a reasonable period of time, I'll tell the GM that I cannot make up my mind, and tell him that I'm holding my action until I can. This allows my character to freeze in indecision without stalling everybody else.

If another GM were to allow a single player to hold up a combat for a full half hour, I'm not above starting another game with the remaining players.

Re: Heat of the Moment

I agree, the desire of the GM alone should not be the deciding factor. If the group as a whole agrees that there is uncertainty, and has agreed upon a mechanic by which to represent it, then the player can roll for their own character . . . in much the same way as most other mechanics are used.

 

 

There must be an awful lot of Goblin Hordes running around in that world

 

I think that what you think you read was not what Thia thought Thia wrote.

But if I'm wrong, you're right, that is a lot of Goblin Hordes.