Paragon

Re: Do you have any "deal breakers" when it comes 6th edition?

I'm in the ironic position of having very few things Steve's indicated as likely changes that bother me, and several I think are quite good ideas--but one of the very few (the decoupled figureds) bother me enough that I probably would be done over it. Go figure.

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

I suspect here that Warp9 is trying to understand what function a rules heavy system serves for those who don't, to him, seem to be getting the benefit he sees it as primarily serving. Trebuchet seems to answer that for his personal choice above.

Me, I sit in a place where my opinion is that even the best GMs exhibit lacks of good judgment from time to time, and sometimes very well intentioned ones exhibit it with some frequency. Having a rules system that doesn't require more GM input than is strictly needed is a virtue because it minimizes the amount of times these sorts of lapses can surface.

I'm in the process of putting together a spell book for my upcoming FH campaign, and its mostly conversions from a version of the magic that was written up for another system (RQ). I've hit a couple of spells I'm having trouble with, one of which I'm not satisfied with my solution for, the other of which I can't quite figure how to do at all.

Earthquake: This localized spell in its original system had varying chances of knocking people in the area down (it came in progressively stronger versions) and of collapsing structural features; in Hero I suspect the best I can do with the latter is have it do some damage to structures.

Move Earth: This is the odder of the two; it would allow you to "walk" a small terrain feature; for example you could move a small copse of trees by having the ground they were set in flow along in a direction at a low rate of speed until the duration of the spells wore off.

Suggestions? Currently I'm doing the first as a linked Instant Change Environment (for the fall) and Body Doing NND (only against rigid structures) but that seems overly baroque and fussy. And I can't figure how to do the latter at all, since TK would simply pull up whatever it was that was being moved (which is not what the spell does).

That did help considerably, but I just want to get your position clear on this:

If I'm understanding your take, its that the visibility of special effects is not assumed to automatically negate the usability of Stealth and other concealment methods to attack from suprise; what they do is provide some indications as to cause and approximate location after the occurred.

So for example, and Invisible attacker with a visible energy beam could still surprise someone; what would typically be the case is that after he did so, they'd know about where the attack came from and he'd have to move before firing again if he wanted to get much benefit, at least offensively.

(In the bow shot from the bushes case, they'd have some idea that the arrow came up from that direction, and might, say, get a bonus to try and pick out the Stealthed archer; if he wanted a secure shot again he'd probably have to drop back into more cover and move before trying it again).

Is this a fair summary of how you see it?

A player asked me this, and I realized that for all the years I've GMed Hero, I never had a clear idea how this works, and a rereading of what seemed to be the relevant parts of the rules and search through the FAQ didn't seem to help, so I'm bringing this to you.

There are situations where an attacker is concealed himself (from Invisibility, use of Conceal, use of Stealth or whatever) and wishes to attack out of it, but his _attacks_ do not have Invisible Power Effects. What does this mean in terms of the potential for surprise (in combat or out)? Does it make any difference if the attack is ranged or not?

(To give context this came up in regard to someone wanting to fire a bow from Stealth as a fairly common operating procedure; since bows don't default to IPE, I couldn't really figure out from the rules if this was treated as being at all effective within them, though the similar procedure seems at least somewhat useful in fiction).

Re: Language Chart

Back when I did my Rainbow Campaign, I had a language chart for it, but it wasn't near this pretty.

Re: Couple Questions (STUNx and Magic Casting)

Basically' date=' as was explained up-thread, you're either using hit locations or you're not. If you are, then you do not roll a STUNx die. Instead, you use the STUNx listed on the hit location chart. And since I'm pretty sure you have a character that frequently uses normal attacks (rather than killing attacks), normal damage attacks calculate their STUN from what they roll on the dice, and then use the NSTUN column to determine if a multiplier is needed because of the hit location.[/quote']

 

There's some cases where you might need to use a stun multiple die even if you are using hit locations: area effects (probably) and mental attacks (almost certainly). You're correct you don't use them at the same time, though.

Having just read your answers to that question, I'm a little puzzled at what the point of this construct is if you meant what you said; since you already have to sense the target, it seems like you already have to effectively have a sensory point present, at which point I'm not clear why you'd bother with a power with this construction; it seems to at best give you what a little Telescopic Sense would.

Am I missing something?

I suspect this was a deliberate change on your part from 4th to 5th Edition, but since a player asked and I could see the question going either way, I thought I'd bring it to you.

In Hero 4th, there was a concept that someone using a set of combat levels that normally didn't apply to ranged defense (5 point melee combat levels or 3 point levels applicable to sword and shield or a martial art applying to those) could apply them to ranged defense on the idea they let them use the shield (which applies to ranged defense) more effectively. Searching through both the Combat Handbook, the discussion of levels in the core book, and even Fantasy Hero, I can't find any suggestion this is still the case. So is there any difference here, or is the shield irrelevant to the applicability of levels to missile defense?

Just picked up the Combat Handbook and was looking through it, when I hit the line on page 109 that indicates that, like levels, damage from Strength exceeding the Strength minimum of weapons in heroic games should ignore the multiplier for advantages the same way martial DCs and levels do. Yet in the Fantasy Hero book, right after the weapons table there's a rather large explanation of doing just the contrary (in the context of weapons with Armor-Piercing or Increased Stun on them).

While I know which way I'm going to do it anyway, I'm curious whether one of these is in error, or whether you had a change of heart at some point on the topic or what, just so I know what the official take is right now.

Re: I had a descussion with Steve about buying some Hero's books...

While some of the pricing makes me cock an eyebrow (don't get me started on the .pdfs) in comparison to other games for content and physical product, the Hero 5 corebook is pretty reasonably priced by modern standards. Price a textbook of compareable size some time.

Is there any process for adding an Advantage with Aid or some other process other than simply having it already attached? Floating Advantages seem like a bad idea without some surcharge, but it seems like there should be some legitimate way to do, for example, an item or spell that gives another spell an area effect or extends its range or such.

Re: 8pt CSL

They're focusing Mechanics in a specific direction, and only a specific direction.

 

It's one thing to say "I'm really good at..." and another thing to Show It Specifically.

Perhaps to some people's suprise, I actually agree with Ghost-angel on this one. My issue is that there's counter-incentive to doing so in many cases in Hero because of the cost of levels compared to attributes, or sometimes to higher types of levels.

Re: 8pt CSL

It's not a 'definition' at all. I didn't say 'exclude concept entirely, bwah-ha-ha, munchkin uber alles;' I said 'champion.' Should I have said 'favor' or 'prefer' or something else to keep the rhetoricometer from being turned up to 11?

 

I'm sorry, but when someone uses an example that clearly ignores one of the necessary traits of what's efficient--in this case, actually being able to get the job done, which giving the ring to Boromir, who's tempted by it from the first moment involved wouldn't do--I have to assume he's playing rhetorical games himself. If that wasn't your intent, it was a really bad example to bring in. Strider wouldn't have been a bad one, but the point was, it still assumed that someone would have been doing something sensible in game or out to hand the Ring off to someone who did not appear likely to hang onto it for long, even if it wouldn't corrupt him.

As I said, bringing in things that work in a book because everything is going to go as the author wants, into a game, where the players can't assume that, seems to be essentially comparing an apple to an orange.

 

I'll not deride your snide aside. If I was out of line earlier I'm sure someone I respect will let me know.

Feel free. As I said, if that wasn't your intent, it wasn't directed at you, but I still stand by the opinion that most people who use that apparent tone about those who care about efficiency seem to either assume the latter are stupid, incapable of caring about characterization, or both.

Re: 8pt CSL

People who champion efficiency over concept would have had Strider or Boromir carry The One Ring because they are clearly superior. They would have been corrupted by power, epically failed and Sauron would have won.

 

This is a narrow definition of efficiency that fails in the field. Since efficiency in this context would have meant no such thing would have happened; they'd have found the best combination of resistance to the ring's affects and ability to hang onto it and given it to _them. Strider might have been a possibility, but no one concerned about things would have given it to Boromir.

You can argue they'd still have failed, but in a game, unlike a book, one can't assume the author is on your side and aim at the longshot if you want to get things done.

(I never cease to be amazed at the people who's concept of power gamers have apparently been shaped by encounters with stupid ones, or who somehow think its not possible to combine the trait with caring about other aspects of the character.)

Re: 8pt CSL

The thing about CSLs is that they can be creatively divided.

 

A boost to OCV, DCV and Damage if you have enough to go around. Though admittedly in my experience a lot of gamers tend to put them all in one place at a time.

Even without spreading they can be useful if the campaign caps permit varied use of them. Though it wouldn't work as well in 5th (since you lose your action if you carry over a defense action to the top of your phase), Striker, the character I mentioned earlier, often aborted into Martial Dodge; with his base CV of 5, 5 more from the martial dodge, and the ten levels, not much could hit him when he did that, barring ego attacks or areas. It was a defeatable tactic of course (if you Held he had to attack sometime if he was going to get anything done) but it could provide him some pretty impressive defense, beyond what he'd have been able to manage with straight DCV. The inverse was also sometimes true, when some opponent was on their last legs and throwing all his levels into offense was risky, but rewarding because he carried an autofire weapon.

Its just that you pretty much do need to have a build and use the tactics to get value out of them.

Re: 8pt CSL

I'm not saying cost effectiveness isn't good. I'm just saying that sometimes more DEX makes no sense beyond a Cost Effective Standpoint and at that point CSLs are usually what you want.

 

I just think it's as bad a sin to ignore Concept over Cost Effectiveness as it is to ignore Cost Effectiveness over Concept. There is a happy medium in there and from my play experience the system is pretty close to it when things are costed out.

 

Though personally I'm a fan of 3 and 5 pt CSLs mixed with PSLs instead of just strait 8pt CSLs.

Well, I've wrapped a character around 8 point CSLs myself in the past (he had ten of them and a base CV of 5); I'm just suggesting that in the vast majority of cases, unless you want the damage potential or the way campaign caps are set up it allows you to do something you otherwise couldn't (in Steve Perrin's houserules, for example, CV is capped "on average", so levels allow you to gust at the OCV or DCV end when the situation warrents in a way you couldn't with simply steady state CV), they're almost always a loser in cost-to-value.

Re: Repeated Attempts

For skills I assume they always work out of combat, the only question is amount of time

 

I set a base time for a job (Let's say 5 min to fix a bicicle chain)

 

I allow the character to roll his mechanics roll, by every one point he fails by it takes one line on the time chart (So a failure by 2 means a 5 min job took an hour)

 

For every 3 it suceeds by reduce time by one line (So succed by 3 it took 1 minute)

 

Never came up powers like telepathy before, I think I will come up with SOMETHING for it, not sure what yet...

While not identical on probability grounds, that's essentially a die-rolling simplified version of the "roll again when you have an additional +1" idea I mentioned.

Really, the only reason this is a question with things like Mind Scan and Telepathy is that they're built as attack powers, but what they really are is funky supersenses that happen to be interactive.

Re: 8pt CSL

IMNSHO: in a game where overall levels are allowed there is almost no reason to purchase an 8-point level due to their efficiency. On the other hand' date=' I don't always build characters just to be efficient. I do think building to concept is a valid consideration. Efficiency and concept need to be balanced. I understand many people look for efficient concepts, but from my perspective, thats a limiting, gamist way of coming up with what options you give yourself in terms of the characters you play. [/quote']

 

The problem is that as long as you're working on a limited resource (i.e. a point budget) even with concept firmly in mind, you can't afford to ignore efficiency, as few people can trivially fit the concept into whatever resource is at hand; at that point you're stuck with the following question: Do I build to efficiency and actually get a character who can mostly do what they should do for the concept, or do I build to concept purely mechanically, and have to sacrifice abilities the character is supposed to have? I submit the latter is not a conceptually sounder way to build even when focused on concept first.

 

The only way one can say to the contrary is either if one's concepts tend to come in below point easily, or if one doesnt' consider what a character can accomplish part of concept, and I'm extremely dubious that the latter is true of most people.

Re: 8pt CSL

I have a problem with the idea of "concept overrideing cost effective builds"

 

I'm quite there with you, but I suspect any elaboration I'd make on the matter would simply annoy someone to no good purpose.

Re: Simple questions on AP caps

In earlier editions limitted power limitations were often a little more charitable - and, thus, abused. IIRC, 4th & FRED were more cautious about giving out standard numbers for such things. The limitation for 'only vs fire' should depend upon the campaign.

 

While I don't disagree generically, nor with your comment at the end, I don't think I ever saw a defense flaw abused appreciably; there were ways to game the system with attacks to one degree or another, but since you don't get to chose who attacks you or with what, it was immensely harder to make a flaw irrelevant there.

Re: 8pt CSL

And of course there's the question in a superheroic game whether you're allowed to exceed AP caps this way.

Re: 8pt CSL

Remember' date=' too, that 8-point CSLs, like most others, can also be used to increase Damage from an attack. Not a benefit of increased DEX.[/quote']

 

I was going to mention that as a mitigating factor earlier myself, and forgot.

Re: 8pt CSL

Why? If the Mental aspect isn't something they need/want they should be buying 6 point levels instead.

Those are even worse, as they're now identical to buying a CV through Dex if you sell the SPD back.

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

The KA STNx is aplied to the BOD, it would just be a matter of aplying it to the BOD after defenses.

 

That would have the effect of making resistant defense absolute against killing, and mean that no stun was possible from it unless you did Body.