whitekeys

The special effect of your Entangle should determine whether the Entangled Character can move once Entangled. Special effects like quicksand, spider webs, melting someone's metal powersuit boots to the floor, or bolo-ing someone's wings and legs, (or, from the book, glue bombs and gravity manipulation) immobilize characters. Further, any Entangle that grabs a part of the body used for movement with the Restrainable, Physical Manifestation, or Focus Limitations, or something else used for movement based on common sense, should prevent the use of them. Whether they have secondary movement abilities remains to be seen. You may have got mind-swiped by "stickiness" as a special effect:

6E1 215: "Typically an Entangle completely immobilizes a character, making it impossible for him to move or use any Movement Power except Teleportation, but the exact effect depends on the special effect of the Entangle and the Movement Power."

As for Knockback,

1. Depending on your Adders and Advantages, and your special effects, you would have to destroy the Entangle first, before attacking the character in order to do any Knockback.

2. The GM would determine the results of Knockback based on common sense and dramatic sense, given the special effect of the Entangle, much as the GM would determine Knockback for special circumstances like standing back against a wall, a character currently Grabbed, etc. I would suggest rereading the rules on Grab and Knockback and taking your cues from that.

It also taught me that true Programmers Humor can not be understood or copied by non-programmers. Sorry, but it will usually fall short. Few people will even understand that Transistor saying "Hello World"* at one point has a deeper meaning.

 

Stuff like naming one Character Reisz (a possibly anagramm of Resize with one e missing*). Even noticing that without knowing how Resize might mater is impossible.

While this is true, having people notice may not be the only purpose of utilizing a naming technique such as this. Personally, whether people know or not, it gives me a sense of meaning and a sense of thematic congruity when techniques like this are used. Furthermore, it may become apparent later on; it may still be meaningful long after you first came into contact with it.

You could work off of the old Tron term, Derezzed.  Autoderesolution? 

 

For a name, I'd suggest some cool-sounding acronym.  Programming in general and computer security really love their acronyms and abbreviations.  Something like A.C.E.S (Anthropomorphized Cybernetic Enforcer of Safety).

Since Autoderesolution, or Autoderezzed seemed a bit awkward to say, I thought I'd split it into two words, for better rhythm. Autogenous Deresolution or Autonomous Deresolution. Great suggestion! Not familiar with Tron.

6?

Cantriped, great post. Perhaps you could expand with a few examples. For me, light, noise, odours make a lot of sense, but "touch level" and "psion levels" weren't as obvious. I'm coming up with some right now, but maybe you had some in mind yourself. 

Further points/questions:

1. You mentioned each character has a broad standard comfort zone for free. Does a character get to choose what their standard comfort zone is during character creation, as in a character from another planet capable of seeing in lower light levels? And what was the comfort zone you had in mind for Normal humans on Earth? Or is it: define the special effect of your Sensory Level Comfort Zone, which for each character is their own personal 0, and environments are defined as a bonus/penalty, rather than a static level, unique to each character?

For example, a human would consider a dark cave a "-4 Environment" but a Dwarf would consider it a "-1 Environment"

2. Is the -4 level (devoid of X) ... a good thing or a bad thing? Like, for light... I assume that represents darkness. But it doesn't quite seem to work for some of the other sense. For example, regarding light, +4 would be blinding brightness, -4 would be darkness (and you probably realize that this has the same game effect but a different special effect); regarding sound, +4 might be a loud concert, -4 might be outer space; regarding smell, +4 would be a really fetid Troll cave wherein you could smell nothing else but Troll stink, flashing or penalizing your sense of smell, but what is -4? Strong winds that blow away all scents such that you can't perceive them?

3. Regarding Noise levels, have you given any thought to a building with many rooms? A noise coming from a distant room might be muffled, and characters attempting to Perceive noises from far away would consider the whole area (building) a -3, say, Noise Level. But noises within the room they currently occupy wouldn't be at a penalty?

4. For the Change Environment power, I assume that characters wanting to increase/decrease the Sensory Level or an area beyond one level, simply buy the power "again" for another 3 CPts?

I recently came up with an idea for a robotic/android superhero. 

The story goes, a highly evolved form of Artificial Intelligence was capable of emotions, perceiving and interpreting the things around it, deciding what was right and wrong, etc. At some point, it became totally disillusioned with the human race and the state of the world that it was living in, and decided to commit digicide (computer suicide). BUT... before it deleted its own code, it built a large andriod as a kind of "saviour" to the human race, hoping that would help, but still feeling incapable of stomaching the potential failure. The andriod was capable of transforming different parts of its body to be a nigh-unstoppable evil-fighting machine, and had a transformable human form.

I need help with:

1. Coming up with a better word for digicide. Codicide? Robocide? There might already be a word in standard use for this act, but I don't know it.

2. Coming up with a name for the super-saviour-android Hero. I wanted something computer-code-like, that has something to do with protecting, saving, failsafes, fixing, debugging, cleaning, defragmenting, etc. But I'm not a computer programmer, so I'm not familiar with the lingo.

Thanks in advance!

So, I guess that's it, folks! Unless someone else wishes to chime in... it's solved.

Good stuff.

Massey: Was it Rapid attack or Multiple attack? 

I thought Rapid attack was a skill which let's one Multiple Attack as a half-phase action. The action is a Multiple Attack, though.. 

Xavier gives Magneto a wooden statue of him trapped inside another wooden statue of a prison cell.

NT: Newest pokemon names just announced and their signature moves.

Alright, BEST fight scene EVER.... You'll never guess it.

Austin Powers vs Mini Me.

lol!

What about the sword fight between Captain Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbosa from Pirates of the Carribean? Not toooo exciting, but it has the element of being undead that could be interesting to model.

Isn't there a famous scene from Star Trek where one of the non-Klingon characters is forced into a duel with one of the Klingon weapons?

Which leads me to a further suggestion:

THE LIGHTSABER BATTLE BETWEEN OBI-WAN, QUI-GON AND DARTH MAUL FROM PHANTOM OF THE MENACE

That one even has the death of a good guy and immediate revenge, plus a mix of HTH and other powers.

Larger scale battles are also possible, I'm sure, like anything involving any army, but would take a lot more work. I bet there are even more movies featuring interesting army battles than there are one-on-one fights. What do you think? I've often thought of doing this for non-combat things, too, like specific scenes from movies or cartoons where other powers are used. Presence attacks, etc. 

My suggestions, in no particular order, would be:

1. The final showdown between Vice-Consul DuPont and John Preston in the movie Equilibrium. One sequence in particular, where they're standing within HTH reach, and they're each trying to get a shot in with pistol, but are continually being blocked by the other is quite impressive.

2. The Wizard duel between Gandalf and Saroman.

3. The battle between Wolverine and that other girl with metal claws.

4. Possibly something from Harry Potter would be unique but I'm not familiar with the movies.

5. The break dance fight from Zoolander

6. The triple duel in the final scene of The Good The Bad and The Ugly. It would be a simple demonstration of Lightning Reflexes, Fast Draw, Combat Skill Levels, but some other stuff which, in the movie, rendered Tuco's gun without bullets. Luck? Or, for that same as-yet-unknown power, a scene from another Clint Eastwood Western where he's wearing a steel plate under his poncho that helps him survive. Maybe something rPD, No Conscious Control. I realize he planned it before hand, so it's nothing out of the ordinary, but an RPG scenario, you may not have had a chance to think ahead like a screenplay writer.

Great question!

Out of curiosity and in order to test consistency on this matter in a Devil's Advocate type of capacity, if TEAMWORK is purely a DEX-based thing because it represents timing for coordination as the SETAC folks here seem to insist (despite the 'training together' element and any internal counting or external signaling elements -- which clearly aren't DEX-based), then what's with the prohibition of physical attacks being coordinated with mental ones? 

After having read the entries for Teamwork (6e1 91), Coordinating Attack (6e2 44), Complementary Mental Powers (6e1 152), and some of the Mental Powers, I have come to some possible conclusions:

1. Teamwork - "... it simulates a character's general ability work as a "team" with any other character in combat". The use of this skill is not exclusive to Coordinating attacks.

2. Coordinating Attacks - "if the combat is particularly confusing or noisy, the GM might require the characters to make a PER Roll to notice the cue to attack;" and "When characters try to Coordinate, they must make an appropriate Skill or Characteristic Roll to see if they succeed. Typically they use... Teamwork... However... at the GM's option, a character who doesn't know Teamwork can make a DEX Roll or Tactics Roll (INT)..." To Coordinate, it is not absolutely necessary to use Teamwork. We have been discussing Coordinating Attacks but referring only to the Teamwork skill as if they were exclusive to one another this whole time. =P

3. a]] "It's up to the GM to decide if attacks can be coordinated" (6e2 45 under Effects of Coordinating). 

     b]] "Because the point of Coordinating is to improve the chances of Stunning a target, characters cannot Coordinate attacks that don't do STUN damage" (6e2 45).

     c]] "...each must make an EGO Roll (to simulate their ability to "coordinate" their attacks) ... The mentalists do not need to Coordinate or act on the same EGO or Phase..." (6e1 152 under Complementary Mental Powers)

Which tells me that Steve Long had a particular idea in mind when he wrote this rule and the rule that Physical attacks cannot be Coordinated with mental attacks. Notice the different between the lower-case, quoted "coordinate" and the capitalized unquoted Coordinate. Coordinating attacks is specifically for adding STUN totals to Stun a target. But it doesn't preclude the opportunity to "coordinate" other attacks in other ways that provide other bonuses, if approved by the GM.

4. I suspect that because Physical and Mental attacks take place in different dimensions of combat or reality, Steve Long thought that their effects shouldn't be combined to increase the chances of Stunning a target, or some such reason. I don't believe his purpose was to say that they couldn't happen at the same time to a potential other effect. Which means, in my opinion, any discussion of whether it's a timing issue, or a perception issue, or any issue related to the skills of different characters, is irrelevant to the rule about combining STUN totals to increase the chances of Stunning a target.

5. To go back to your original post, Surrealone, the best I can come up with is to buy two separate skills, or alter the governing Characteristic in each circumstance while retaining any Skill increases, or buy them as Skill Levels, and determine which of the Characteristics is most appropriate given the application of the Teamwork skill. If you're trying to Coordinate attacks, use the standard rules for Coordinating attacks, and the GM can determine what he thinks is most appropriate to determine success. The rules state clearly it doesn't have to be Teamwork.

EXAMPLE:

DEX: 10, 0 pts

INT: 13, 3 pts

+2 Teamwork, 4 pts

Enhanced Perception, +1 to PER Rolls, 1 pt?

1. Attempting to quietly jump off a balcony and land simultaneously on an unsuspecting Orge: DEX-based Teamwork - 9+(DEX/5)+2 = 13-

2. Attempting to swing swords down upon an opponents shield in unison rhythm with your teammate, in a foggy, dimly lit cave: PER-based Teamwork - 9+(INT/5)+2+1 = 16-

3. Attempting some kind of group intimidation tactic to scare off a threat that you know you can't take on by yourselves (which obviously involves song and dance, like a haka): INT-based Teamwork - 9+(INT/5)+2 = 15-

Gotcha. Those are neat ideas. Change Environment seems reasonable to me, but so does the original idea of limited DCV. 

What about a superhero who wears a strange hypnotic patterned suit that makes it hard to measure his exact location with the naked eye. Or even just regular camouflage.

Thanks eepjr24. I like your idea, too. That's like a general PP, not PP for each move separately. I'll think about that.

I thought your first post defined one END Cycle as ending when your banked Recoveries kick in? Which in this example would be at the end of Phase 3 and the middle of Phase 5. So by the end of Phase 5, you've only gone through 2 Cycles and lost 10 LTE (instead of 5 under the normal method) and are down to an effective max END to 20 (instead of 25 under the normal method). Unless I'm misunderstanding something of course.

No, you're correct. I miscounted the Cycles. But the gist is the same: you're running out of LTE faster. Also, sorry for the double quote: the mouse I was using was messed.

Edit: OK, one difference is the rate of accruing LTE over long combats increases exponentially, rather than linearly like the normal method. Per RAW, you could keep going for around 10 Turns before you start not having enough END to fuel a whole Turn. Under your method, you would run dry around Turn 8? So yeah, if you expect to have a lot of combats that run that long, then it could make a difference.

Yes, exactly. That's what I'm going for. I could reduce the cost of END or REC, but I don't think I will. It's simply part of the campaign setting. It's actually more like a Complication, because I'm not using the same rules for humans, only Pokemon battles, but then it loses it's value if every single Pokemon has the same Limitation. 

Thinking out loud: I'm going to let Recoveries work as normal. Which means, if you take Recoveries before you reach 0 END, then your banked Post-Segment 12 Recoveries never kick in and you stay in the same END Cycle, LTE is never reduced. So the tweaked LTE END rules only penalize expenditures of END that are too close together. If you break, the LTE reduction is delayed. But this is, of course, all tempered by the specific numbers. I can see how this could be abused, if you mathed it out to take Recoveries at the exact right moment in order to never lose any LTE, effectively going on forever and ever, but the rules are only supposed to apply over a shorter period of time (one pokemon battle). Mostly the reason why I wanted faster LTE loss.

Sure you can buy extra DCV with a limitation such that the DCV only applies when someone is targeting a specific hit location on the character ... if your game uses hit locations and if GM will allow it.  I feel that most reasonable GMs who use hit locations would probably permit it ... but I think the limitation would likely fall somewhere between -1/2 and -1 -- depending on the frequency of hit location use in the GM's game.

 I concur.

How about extra DCV to make you harder to hit at range?

What the rationale behind this one? Just curious. It seems legal, but the special effect might lead us in another direction.

I'm not sure I understand what you're aiming for here. Let's take your example of END 30, REC 5, SPD 2, spending 10 END/Turn.

 

Normal method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 25

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 20

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 10

Turn 5: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

New method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 20 (5 REC banked)

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 10 (10 REC banked)

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  0 (15 REC banked)

Banked Recoveries kick in; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  5 (5 REC banked)

Turn 5 gets complicated, but if I understand correctly it looks something like:

• Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0,
• Banked REC kicks in to bring you back up to 5 END
• Burn 5 END in Phase 12 => END 0
• End of Phase 12 REC now kicks in, bringing you back to END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

So I really don’t see how this impacts gameplay other than now I have to keep track of how many Recoveries I've banked?

I'm not sure I understand what you're aiming for here. Let's take your example of END 30, REC 5, SPD 2, spending 10 END/Turn.

 

Normal method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 25

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 20

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 10

Turn 5: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

New method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 20 (5 REC banked)

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 10 (10 REC banked)

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  0 (15 REC banked)

Banked Recoveries kick in; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  5 (5 REC banked)

Turn 5 gets complicated, but if I understand correctly it looks something like:

• Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0,
• Banked REC kicks in to bring you back up to 5 END
• Burn 5 END in Phase 12 => END 0
• End of Phase 12 REC now kicks in, bringing you back to END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

So I really don’t see how this impacts gameplay other than now I have to keep track of how many Recoveries I've banked?

Pretty sure you got it right. The only difference here is the Long Term context of END usage. So I think your first example is missing the standard calculation for losing LTE, which means you compared normal endurance usage to my tweaked LTE END usage.

The only thing you're missing is the total END available at the end of the second example. IF.. the combatant in the first example were to find repose for a span of 12 seconds, it would get another Post-Segment 12 recovery to bring its END back up to 5 (or more if it had taken actual Recoveries on its Phases [though I haven't exactly thought about how taking Recoveries will affect LTE yet]) because its available END total is still at 30. The combatant in the second example would not benefit from any Recoveries. Since it's gone through 6 END Cycles, and it's REC is 5, it no longer has ANY END. It's totally pooped and must expend STUN to act.

Savvy?

We could just change the threshold range and the Margin of Failure Ranges for each Wound Level. For example, it could be something like this:

 

LW: 1-4, MW: 5-8, HW: 9+.

Astute! That was what I was hinting at.

Again, not sure on the math on the odds of that, but if it is accurate, those results look pretty lethal (in which case, the formula might have to be changed). The 13 BODY shot will almost always be eventually fatal, and will quite reliably kill someone. And if it doesn't kill him, it will KO him 99.5% of the time. The 8 BODY shot will most likely stun him and will put him into shock 3 out of 4 times.

 

I'm thinking if the math is right, that's a bit too lethal. Basically, anything that can deal 2d6-1 or higher is a deadly weapon.

I agree that this is quite lethal. But that's not at all concerning to me. Everything checks out: you rolled max damage so you obviously landed a vital shot and a 13 BODY wound will kill you if your BODY is only 10; which is totally congruent with reality if you imagine that the shot hit you in the head or stomach, unprotected, and you didn't receive immediate and invasive medical intervention. Guns ARE deadly weapons and HERO is a beautifully balanced mathematical representation of that.

However, I hear that might not be the kind of balance you're going for. What are you going for?

What happens if I succeed all my rolls, btw?

I suppose something like this could be worked into the system, but it would change things around a bit. Maybe at 6 BODY, a Shock CON Roll is triggered and is at a penalty of -1 for every 2 BODY above 6, and a Trauma STR Roll could be triggered at 11 BODY, being at -1 for every 2 BODY above 11? For example, if you are hit for 8 BODY, you take a Medium Wound. The Shock CON Roll is going to be at -1 (this essentially overwrites the penalty to the roll listed in the most recent post). You'd still have your -2 WP to tote around with you. And if you took, say, 15 BODY, you'd take a Heavy Wound. You'd roll your Trauma STR Roll at -2 and, if you survived that, you'd then roll your Shock CON Roll at -4. Of course, these numbers could be changed around.

This is an idea I can get behind. However, the only difference in the system you're suggesting, with the numbers you're giving, is that you've halved the effectiveness of all damage done in your campaign. Since a Normal Normal has an average of 10 BODY, describing 8 BODY as a Medium Wound is somewhat of an understatement. Gnome sayin'? And at 15 BODY Damage taken, they're bleeding out quickly (however you want to describe that).

Whereas, before, I had a gun that did 2d6+1 and felt pretty comfortable with only needing to shoot it twice to seriously incapacitate a Normal, now I'll need to hit three or more times to have the same effect. PD is irrelevant to this calculation, btw. 

You could double the damage done, but then all the mathematicians would be scratching their heads, thinking you went to your next-door neighbours house by walking all the way around the block in the other direction.

Okay, just to pepper this discussion up with a provocatively different approach. How about:

 

(3)     Environmental Movement: Urban (no penalties)

This was my thought exactly (except for the provocatively different part =P Just regular HERO!). But it should be noted that this switches the mode from giving bonuses to characters with an ability, to giving penalties to those without it.

 

An excellent breakdown of parkour. However while I think the guidelines are pretty good, I dont see the need for Parkour as a skill. Acrobatics, Breakfall and Climbing handles all those things.

 

This is a change from the usual: keeping things complicated when a good opportunity for streamlining presents itself. If the main and continual uses of Acrobatics, Breakfall, and Climbing are going to be Parkour-related, having a Parkour skill which encompasses all of them seems like a darn good idea to me. But you are correct in that they don't necessarily need to be changed much, as was presented in the OP.

Each hit needs to be tracked as the accumulated score should contribute to the shock roll (regardless of whether the damage has been used to hinder or harm).

As written, this could be considered a gritty death spiral - or death plummet. One way to avoid the death spiral is to allow key characters to Grit Your Teeth: spend a Phase gritting your teeth to ignore WP. Roll EGO modified by your WP. If you succeed, ignore -1 WP; for every 2 points by which you pass your roll, ignore another -1 WP. This lasts until you are hit again (or, at the GMs option, it can last longer to avoid rolling so many times).

 

Another option to shorten fights is to use a new characteristic called Pain Threshold (previously called Durability; if there's something in the book called Pain Threshold, the term mentioned here can be changed), or PT. Most important characters have a PT of 5. The rank is how much WP a character can sustain before being knocked out or go into shock.

In response to the idea of penalties based on Damage taken, I only wanted to offer how that used to work in D&D 3.5 as food for thought, or possible inspiration. 

Concentration was a skill. If a character wanted to cast a spell in the same turn they took damage, they had to succeed a Concentration check of DC (difficulty class) 10 + the amount of damage taken + the level of the spell. 

I don't really like the idea of adding a new characteristic either, as HERO has plenty of them to play with. Another option to adding the Durability/Pain Threshold could be to have a set limit on the Total Wound Penalty (TWP) a character has. This way, a character could not take 10 or 20 Light Wounds and be fine enough to walk away (he'd be at -10 and -20, respectively, but would still be able to walk). So, here's another alternative: 

Personally, I think adding a skill would be easier than adding a characteristic to HERO, but as you've mentioned EGO already suits your self. I'm also not against some of the other penalties you've mentioned, like movement penalties, but I might argue them if you were uncompromising about them. Like why would I run slower if only my arm is busted? 

Body, as a characteristic, could be eliminated. The only time it would be relevant, in this system, would be for bleeding out - but even then, bleeding out could be abstracted out to Wounds increasing in severity over time (i.e., usually outside of the scope of a normal-length combat).

I more-or-less eliminated the BODY score in the Pokemon campaign I am currently running. It's going to come up so infrequently, for both Pokemon and Humans, that I simply decided to describe and adjudicate instances of real, life-threatening harm on a case-by-case basis, mostly dependent on dramatic sense as I see it fits the flavour of the campaign setting.

I would make this recommendation to you as you see it fits the flavour and tone of your campaign setting. No one should have a problem with that. To my mind, this style is actually less gritty, but more dramatic. No death, but many hindrances to overcome, and requiring much heroism and creativity.

I'm not suggesting it be a limitation. That is to say, I'm not suggesting it be a way of players to conserve Character Points. It's a faster way of losing LTE, partly because of the mechanics, but partly because these calculations are always in effect, rather than, as per the standard rules, waiting until a specific scene when the GM knows the characters are going to be doing something for an extended period of time. I expect it to at least hinder a Pokemon. In that event, the Trainer would probably just switch to another one. So, hindering, yes, to the pokemon, but not to the character.

And your calculation of 55 rounds is probably not wrong, but the numbers I suggested were way beyond the power level of the pokemon we're typically dealing with. You know, they've got somewhere around 20-30, REC 5 or 6, but still possibly using 10 END over the course of a Turn. On the other hand, if they came across a rather powerful Legendary Pokemon, 55 rounds seems reasonable in the campaign setting I've established. 

Maybe I can come up with some more realistic numbers to give a sense of how it will play out in fake-reality, I mean.. the game.

To expand on the second point above, it was more truer that first thought.

After re-reading the rules, it seems the standard LTE rules favour a high REC, because if the amount of END spent in a turn is calculated to be less than half of a character's REC then no LTE is lost at all. And depending on the result of the aforementioned calculation, more or less LTE is lost each Turn, the higher the REC the less LTE lost.

I suppose in my system, since I specifically stated I wasn't comparing to the 50% REC threshold, it would favour high END instead. But I think it's more accurate to say that no benefit is derived from a high REC in long-term scenarios, since a character would benefit equally in each system from a high END. Unless I'm missing something.

Thinking about comparing sprinters with long distance runners in terms of END and REC, everything seems to check out. Long distance runners have a high REC, which is why they lose less LTE over long periods. Sprinters probably have a low REC, most of their END they expend all at once, and are probably less capable of doing a number of sprints over a long period of time as a result. I guess I'm thinking of Pokemon more like sprinters.