whitekeys

This will highly favor 0 END and Reduced END abilities, I assume you have accounted for that?

I'm actually not sure what you mean. In the long term, if a power has been purchased with Reduced END, it shouldn't have much of an effect in either system. No? What problem do you see coming up? Do you mean that they will be more powerful in this setup? Because I figure they're highly favoured in any system that tracks END of any kind, if you can afford the Advantage.

Also, very high END will be more desirable than high REC.

This is true. But again, in my own comparison of the regular rules and the new system I'm suggesting, I'm not seeing how it's much different or unbalanced. An example might help me.

Lastly, END reserves will be popular if allowed.

Probably not. Allowed, that is

Thanks for the feedback!

I have been brainstorming some alternate rules for my (Superheroic) Pokemon campaign. One thing I have been grappling with is the restriction Pokemon have in terms of using their powers too much. In the video games, this was referred to as Power Points (PP) and was strictly numerical (Hydropump . . . 5 PP: you can use this attack 5 times before needing to replenish at the PokeCenter or by some other means). It's not as clear cut in the anime, however. 

Obvious possibilities for reflecting this are Charges and the regular LTE rules, and possibly some other Limitations on powers or pokemon END. Since the campaign is Episodic, they get to "start from scratch" at the beginning of every episode, so the LTE rules, for situations where Pokemon can't get to a PokeCenter, don't seem to apply, and the limitation value on Charges doesn't seem worth it. Charges seems too numerical and too much like the video game for my tastes, anyway.

So I came up with this for tracking "LTE" during battle.

First, regular END rules apply as normal, but Post-Segment 12 Recoveries are banked. For example, if you have 100 END, 10 REC and SPD 2, and you spend 5 END each Phase, you will go through 10 Turns to put you at 0 END, and then your 10 banked Post-Segment 12 recoveries kick in to bring you back to 100. You can only cash in your banked REC when at or approaching 0 END. This would constitute one "END cycle". Second, each time you go through one cycle, you subtract your REC score from your total END, meaning that one of your banked recoveries never applies and never will apply (until long term rest is sought). Continue until exhausted.

It seems to favour lower REC scores, but since regular END rules apply as normal, a REC score that's too low will exhaust you in the short term before you're ever exhausted in the long term. I don't see it as unbalancing in that regard. Furthermore, I purposely left out the standard LTE calculation of the 50% REC threshold for per-Turn END usage because I wanted it to be more of an issue for each battle.

Any other bugs with this? Questions, comments?

I agree with bigdamnhero, short answer and long answer.

I would add that if you're looking for certain power builds, using a different power for changing something as you describe is often a better option, rather than Transform, like some Usable On Others powers or Images, possibly Mental Illusion.

Sweet character concept, by the way. 

My one greatest inspiration: The Thesaurus.

Augmentum

Flux

Mr. Shift

Modifactor

Reducto

Formus

Transformus

X-Shape

X-Frame

X-Pect

Matcaster

Meta-Morph

The Mutationer

Temper Man

Redo Man

Revo Man

The Figurine

Transmuto

Mr. Matterwarp

Whitekeys

Take your pick! Personal favourites are probably Flux and Mr. Matterwarp. Not sure on the rest of his concept or personality, though.

​WRT 1:  Ahh, but a failed teamwork roll by one member has been commonly explained in games I've played (under different GM's) as the result of things like: Bob didn't hear the signal/command; Bob lost count; Bob forgot what the command meant; etc.  Those things aren't even remotely related to DEX; rather, they play into the portion of the Teamwork skill that pertain to needing to perceive what other members of the team are doing .... and having trained together with the team to learn the team tactics.  If this is how GM's tend to use the skill ... and explain the failure of one member to coordinate while others succeeded, then there would seem to be a basis for INT factoring into the skill.  If, however, a GM explains a botched Teamwork skill roll solely by claiming Bob was off on his timing, then I can see a case for it being purely DEX-based.

It's still just a special effect.

Here's how I track BODY. After the calculations we're all familiar with, an attack will do X BODY. This becomes an "X BODY Wound". If you're stabbed for 2 BODY Damage, you now have a stab wound. It has a numerical value which defines how fast it will heal, and, relative to your BODY total, how much closer you are to succumbing to your wounds and dying. The threshold for this is your [r]PD. If an attacker succeeds an Attack Roll, and the target subtracts its PD from the BODY Damage total to equal 0 or less, then the attacker either missed or had their hit shrugged off to no effect.

This is pretty close to the system you are envisioning:

1. I don't just mark my hit point total down. I keep track of individual wounds. Some of them can be shrugged off, and others are more serious.

2. It works on a Threshold basis, defined by my PD (rather than a percentage of my BODY). Your PD can be purchased relative to your BODY if you choose. 

3. With the Disabling optional rules, or slightly tweaked versions, you can accomplish the suffering of penalties for your characters as a result of these wounds.

4. Same goes for STUN.

Thoughts? I have other ways of doing it, as well, I'll fill you in later.

EDIT: stupid codes for ®

Steve, when I read your post, for some reason I was reminded of FATE Core. It seems to me that Striking Appearance is a bonus tied to a particular "aspect" of a character, an "aspect" that is double-edged. It's FATE-ish.

A kind of Talent structure might be to use the Striking Appearance cost and link that to one "aspect" of your character, but make sure it's double-edge. What bigdamnhero reminded us of is the unique part of Striking Appearance - the inherent limitations are based on common sense, dramatic sense, and game balance, not something specific like Nonpersistent. 

However, Lucius' example are quite good in terms of actual builds. Reasoning and special effect have yet to come, but that could be because a lot of the Characteristics aren't used to affect other people. 

I see your point, but I still believe that DEX is more of a Complementary Roll in Teamwork.

 

Another reason why I argue Teamwork is INT based is due to the training with your team that is required to use it. That does require memory (which you have conceded is INT based). Knowing when to move, when to strike, and possibly when not to strike is dependent upon the training you have received with your team. If one guy messes up the strategy (like the silent count in American Football, if one guy moves early), then the entire team is at a loss (5 yard penalty in the example). That seems more to me like the team member forgot what they were supposed to do (maybe the player thought of the wrong silent count or the wrong play). 

 

This is why I think Teamwork is INT based, and why I have already house-ruled it as such.

This seems like the difference between learning the skill in the first place and executing the skill in a combat situation. Two different things.

Not quite getting to the point where I feel I can afford some suggestions, because there have been a few things that haven't yet been addressed or asked. Although if I'm wrong about that, let me know.

Firstly, in whatever system you are envisioning or attempting to create, how are you going to deal with being knocked out or being killed? I ask because Hit Point systems and the HERO Damage system are pretty clear cut regarding death or unconsciousness. 

Secondly, in one of your earlier posts, you said you have read the rules on Disabling, bleeding wounds, etc., and something about them left you wanting more. Where exactly did they fall short in your opinion?

Third, in one of your earlier posts, you had a system with Minor, Severe, Critical and Taken Out wounds. I assume that you're still rolling attack Damage as regular? They're linked, so I'm just wondering if you're thinking of also changing the way attacks work.

Hey OP,

Firstly, I feel a little embarrassed that the community is having such a hard time understanding what you're asking. I'm off to work, I plan on posting more on this later, but such comments as the following ...

I agree. Your too emotionally attached to this "thought experment".
Because of that, your lossing focus on the true questions. What makes This system better than the old system? Is it quicker? What about this new system would be worth the complexity and extendant combat?

... are unfortunate to say the least. I believe that the true questions can only be defined by the person asking them.What right do we have to tell the OP what they should be basing their decisions on? And the OP has written quite a bit to get their point across.

Until later when I have time...

To quote, find the post of the person you want to quote, and then click the Quote button on the lower right hand corner. This will open up the Reply dialogue with the entire post in "quotes". You can edit the quote if need be.

This is exactly how I've seen Teamwork rolls used, too: the roll usually encompasses the signaling, the perception thereof, etc.

 

This brings me right back to the point of Teamwork being usable when flashed, deafened, muted, etc. (all at once) ... because there isn't actually any signaling or perception requirement associated with the use of this 100% DEX-based skill.  Therein lies the conceptual problem our group is having with it.

 

Thoughts?

I don't mean any offense, but you could have doing it wrong this whole time  =P  And what i mean is that the signaling, or the way in which you coordinate, should just be a special effect of how the skill is used. Same with a lot of other things in HERO. And again, with the flashed, deafened, muted, etc... Would probably prevent you from doing a lot of things given common sense, dramatic sense, and game balance. For example, some of the ones I've mentioned, like Demolitions and Lockpicking, as well as a slough of others, would be difficult to accomplish while deaf, blind and mute (assuming your character wasn't all of these right from the get-go).

It's just a special effect, and issues like the ones you've raised should probably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the GM. In a way, I totally agree with you. You shouldn't be able to coordinate attacks if you can't see, hear, or speak to your teammates, but that doesn't mean that the skill's constitution should be changed to include something more INT-based.

As previously noted, a Teamwork roll tends to represent not just the timing aspect of coordinating attacks, but also the signaling and reception/perception thereof entailed by a team coordinating its attacks.  With that traditional use of the skill in mind, I ask again (not just Tasha, this time) for folks to explain the rationale regarding INT (PER?) -not- playing into coordination/Teamwork. 

What seems to be a perfectly good rationale for this is that something as simple as signaling the beginning of a routine, be it marching band music, a football play, or a Coordinated Attack, doesn't require a Roll. I'm under the impression that speaking during combat usually doesn't take any time, and often takes place outside of any turn-based system, initiative order, or the like, as in funny commentary a la Flash, signature puns, or bad guy soliloquy, or whatever the case may be. Why is perceiving a signal or communicating about a plan a necessary component of a DEX-based skill, moreso than the examples I've provided already? These...

I think you just presented some examples entailing false equivalence.  Let's take a look at why:

 

Lockpicking is something you can do with your eyes closed and strictly by feel (assuming a mechanical lock, of course).  Certainly there's a perceptive component to the lock and how it feels, but you can fixate on just the lock, itself, in a completely dark room, and use the tools to pick it ... regardless of the actions of anyone else (like, say, your mates).  That's almost entirely DEX.  Not 100%, but mostly.

 

Then there's Combat Piloting.  Certainly it's got a perceptive component, too -- no different from regular driving.  However the 'combat' part of it is where the action is -- the ability to perceive things like you normally would while driving and apply combat reactions to them ... and, again, we're back to mostly DEX, right?  Not 100%, but mostly ... when talking the combat part of Combat Driving that makes it worth points whereas regular driving ... isn't.

... are not sufficient, in my opinion, to prove your point. But at the same time, I'm not arguing with you. I think if you want to change it for your group's house rules it should be fine. I just feel like its adding more complexity to it.

EDIT: Further to my point above, I don't consider it the traditional use of the skill to first perceive a signal, then coordinate. If anything, the tradition would be to view it as a special effect, success of the attack based on the Teamwork Roll.

This suggests that there's no intelligence component, at all, to TEAMWORK, and that coordination/TEAMWORK is basically no different from rolling a coin across one's knuckles (which is pure DEX aside from the mind telling the body what to do). 

 

i.e. A DEX-only basis suggests that you don't need to see your target (since PER is INT-based), or need to use your brain (also INT-based, I'd hope!) to remember and process team commands/signals to focus on a single target. 

 

Given that awareness/perception of one's compatriots, commands/signals, and the target are essential parts of coordination/TEAMWORK, can you explain your rationale regarding INT (PER?) -not- playing into coordination/TEAMWORK -- since a TEAMWORK roll tends to be used to represent all of those things in addition to the timing aspect of which you wrote?

I personally have considered this for the entire time I have played HERO. I just think that teamwork is reasonably not DEX AT ALL. Hand-Eye coordination IMO has always been INT/PER based. Thus, I have never seen DEX as the appropriate skill for Teamwork. Think about it. 

 

When you fire a gun at the same time as someone else, most of the time you do a countdown of some sort. That eliminates the, have to time my strike perfectly, agenda. It adds to the, how fast does this gun fire and how fast does this fire?, effect, which is INT. 

 

Imagine Steiner and Vivi from Final Fantasy IX. The ability magic sword involves Vivi casting a spell upon the sword of Steiner and Steiner striking the target. That damage is done at the same time. How does that have ANYTHING to do with DEX? It has all to do with "I will cast a spell, and you will strike the target," which is INT. 

The problem with these arguments is that you could make them for just about anything.

Surrealone: Wouldn't you say there was a DEX component to a Professional Skill utilizing small tools, delicate parts, or timing of any kind (like something chemical in nature)? Or perhaps same for Demolitions or Shadowing. And as the GM, what would be the point of making someone pay for the first skill, roll it to gauge success, and THEN roll DEX to see if they did -that- part correctly? Isn't there an equal amount of INT-based skill involved in such things as Combat Piloting or Lockpicking?

JohnnyAppleseed098: With all due respect to your views, this seems like splitting hairs over the different functions of the human brain. You could argue there's a visual, gross-motor or fine-motor component to just about everything a human does, or that at any one point in time my Frontal or Occipital lobes are more engages than my Parietal Lobe. The reality is that many different parts of the brain work together, all the time, to enable us to do what we do, but breaking it down is way too much granularity, even for HERO. Stating that some action is perceived as being a "function of the brain" rather than a "function of our muscles", and then subsequently labeling it an INT skill rather than a DEX skill, is not only a slippery slope but also a misunderstanding of the HERO rules.

I don't personally see anything wrong with the idea that coordinating attacks, after you've trained with your combat partner, is a DEX-based skill as per the HERO rules representation of reality, and anything beyond that should easily be covered with the Tactics skill, or Perception or Deduction, as it were, or maybe even with a Knowledge Skill or relevant Professional Skill if you have one. Rename them if you want, that was a good suggestion.

I agree with Nolgroth. As was seen the one of the movies, despite being restrained, he was still able to use his claws to free himself from that weird garrote thing. Same with something like a lightsaber, or this energy sword you're talking about.

However, assuming you're building a character that's like Wolverine, or with powers inspired by Wolverine, you'd have to decide whether this was something your power was capable of or not. Up to you! 

"Mail" as in Play-By-Mail, aka Play-by-Email.

Thanks!

Making vehicles using normal character rules - this certainly makes sense for KITT, or science fiction ships run by AIs.

I'd be fascinated to see what the character sheet would look like if anyone has done this - what assumptions have people made about passengers etc?

I would expect most people have done this at some point, to lesser or further degree. It's what suggested in the rule book, after all. My best attempt, from a long time ago, came after attempting to make these vehicles with totally different rules. They were Mechs. I thought I would do a bit of a rules conversion for MechAssault. While I had fun, I eventually got wise to the idea that the way HERO is should be tampered with as little as possible. And then the practicality hit me: Mechs have everything characters do, they're even shaped like humans, they're just piloted by a different mind. I made them using the normal character rules and Bob's your uncle. It's almost useless to consider the pilot as separate anyway, since you're always in your Mech, it's more like a powersuit. Although, for that campaign (which never actually happened) we had planned on doing stuff not in the Mechs.

You could almost build that as Multiform....

Reading through thia thread, some of you guys are overthinking throws and exert maneuvers. These are functions of the Strength characteristic. These are things you can normally do with STR anyway. You can pick up a character and throw them to the ground without any sort of special maneuver really. Disarm is the same. Without a maneuver, you can use your strength to try and knock an obiect out of your opponents grip.

 

To create a "maneuver" all you need is bonus Strength to help facilitate the exert element that comes built into the characteristic. Its pretty simple.

Indeed. And while Christopher cleared this up by saying it's not about the martial maneuvers themselves, but about creating a new system that can be applied to other things, I would say the same principle should apply - we may be overthinking it. Furthermore, two points:

1. Little attention has been given to the 10 CP minimum cost of Martial Maneuvers. I feel this explains a little about why the martial maneuvers seem like a patch put over the rest of the HERO rules. It seems to me that the maneuvers are an extension of the combat rules themselves, and thus, not much of a patch at all. a more accurate view, in my opinion, is that HERO has pillars each holding a different load. Are not the Skills quite different than the Powers? Different from the Complications?

2. Little attention has been given so far to Skills as a replacement.

So, given 1 and 2, I'm going to suggest this: a Martial Arts Skill, 10 CP, defined by the user as a kind of martial arts style when purchased and cannot be changed thereafter. The cost structure of the skill would be the same as other skills for increasing the roll. During combat, you come up with the equivalent of a "Surprise Move" but is actually a "Martial Move", define what kind of bonus you hope to get (bonus OCV, DCV, trip), and you're given a set of pluses or minuses to the Martial Move Roll depending on how much of a bonus/effect you want. Then, this effect applies to your attack roll thereafter. You must declare you're attempting a Martial Arts Maneuver before you roll an attack roll. If the roll fails, you fail to effect the target with the move (miss / no attack roll thereafter). You can abort to roll. Since all of the basic combat maneuvers exist, this skill can be used to augment them, or make them better, which is what seems to have been the consensus on what the Martial Maneuvers were in the first place. Any of the proposed list of things that Martial Maneuvers can do that Basic Maneuvers cannot do, proffered by Lucius, could be covered by this skill, assuming that we thought those things couldn't just be done already, without any extra rules.

Better yet, they could be bought as categories, as in the Navigation Skill, and would function as Adders to your attacks thereafter.

This could be used for other things like spell systems, assuming you had a combat-related effect that you wanted to produce. If a basic Blast-like power is purchased and defined as a "Fire", then the propose Martial Arts Rolls, which in this case would turn into a Fire Magic Roll, would also function similar to a Power Skill Roll, but would have specific combat-related effects. 

Thoughts on this?

Most of this is covered by the usual PRE modifiers.

But if the player insists or just wants to be sure he can depend on the effect, then he should be able to buy some more PRE or Striking Appearance on the vehicle, with an appropriate limitations, don't you think?

 

I disagree. If a character wants to ensure that the effect is dependable, the character would buy it on the character's own sheet with a Limitation. This seems appropriate only given a particular relationship between the character and the vehicle in question, like, perhaps, Ghost Rider and his motorcycle. Batman, since he has many different vehicles (which he may consider being more or less badass in different situations) would buy them on the vehicle.

I'm not 100% sure I buy this in real life - if I see an M1 Tank coming at me, the last thing on my mind is how impressive the driver is. But I think it works well enough for gaming purposes. Tho if you're giving a car INT & EGO so that it can act on its own, then it stands to reason the car should be able to make PRE Attacks on its own as well. Steven King's Christine comes to mind. But again we're back to: is this a vehicle or a separate character?

But if the M1 Tank came at you, you were intimidated, and then the driver popped out and said "Do what I tell you or I blow you up", his claim (and thus his PRE attack) would be bolstered by the tank itself. After all, the PRE isn't just about being impressive, it's about impressing people enough to get them to do things for you. 

My feeling is that having a INT, PRE, or EGO on a vehicle doesn't necessarily make it its own character. If these characteristics are used simply to buff the driver, as mentioned by Christopher, then there's no reason to assume that the vehicle can act on its own. The suggestion that a vehicle with INT has an AI was only a suggestion. The decision whether to use the rules for Vehicles or for Followers should be based on the role that entity plays in the campaign, which, I would think, was the basic difference between them in the first place.

I don't see any posts from you in that section? You might want to check if your post went through or not. Steve's always really good about responding.

He never answered my question  I asked it over a month ago. 

But to answer your question, Parallaxus, it sounds like a bit of creativity is in need. Not in terms of character creation, but in terms of how these rules can be applied in ways not specifically stated in the rulebook. That's one of the things HERO does well - toolkitting! 

What does the M stand for in PBM?

As a counterpoint to some of the folks who've said that some players write too much in one post and some write not enough, I think it would be worth your time at least considering that the expectations on the part of the GM, and the group as a whole, needs to change based on the new medium you're playing in. After all, few RPGs ever were designed to be played in a PBP format. I think it's safe to say most of them assume a face-to-face, table top kind of setting. 

My posts are in the middle, but tend towards longer. I keep them simpler to avoid the ire of the other players. But the PBP format, in my opinion, lends itself more to story telling rather than precise combat computations, much as Cantriped stated before me. I even appreciate that in my face-to-face games. It would be a dream if someone started up a monologue and came up with a bunch of their own cool stuff, rather than feeling like I have to continually fan a dying flame to keep the game interesting. 

Basically, my answer to you question is that it's almost useless to pick any system if you're going to throw half the rules out the window because they weren't designed for PBP gaming. Experiment with no system and adjudicate things as they arise. In that sense, the ultimate philosophy of HERO stays true: common sense, dramatic sense, game balance, etc. Not much of an adjustment after all.

Not really familiar with Tome Keeper, but I had some questions/comments about your power build.

1. Why buy all the sense groups if "vague and unclear" restricts that? Granted, I took that from your previous post, but it said "you don't actually smell, taste, etc." It might be cheaper to do it the other route. 

2. Is the line of sight to the book or to the target? It might already be covered in the UOO advantage, but not sure.

3. Having a story read aloud to you might constitute Requires Multiple Users limitation.

4. You mentioned the book is not a Focus. If he's in the middle of reading and someone takes/destroys the book, is the power interrupted? 

Too true, though, your spelling is terribly good.

I like the idea in principle, and I don't think it would be unbalancing. But I question how it would actually work in gameplay, since the player would have to declare "I'm going to use a Quick Strike" before it's actually their action. I have long had a house rule on the books for Hurrying: basically Pushing for initiative rather than STR/damage/effect. But I can count the number of times it's actually come up on 1/5th of one hand. The players don't typically think of it until its their action, by which time it's too late.

 

(I keep a SPD Chart spreadsheet on my laptop filled in with everyone's SPD & DEX so I can call out "You're up next" rather than going through the "okay, who goes on Phase 3? DEX 20, 19, 18, 17..." singalong. Easy enough to change DEX/SPD by cutting & pasting, but again the player would have to declare it before I call on them. Maybe if I had the chart projected somewhere they could see it and have a better sense of exactly who goes when? But that might lead to more metagaming than I prefer...)

I agree with this. It's a temporal nightmare, lol.

Although, you could come up with a similar system to the Abort mechanism, but it works in reverse. It would basically be Delaying your action until the next phase, where you get to use your "fast strike" at a higher DEX, and then you get another action on your regular DEX. In practice it seems like you're going slower, because you have to wait until your next turn to move quickly, but then you get two phases on that segment.

Unless this is how holding an action works already, in which case please taunt and ridicule me. 

It's never occurred to me to use foci like that, but now it makes a lot of sense.  It really opens up the imagination for other special effects using various OIFs. 

Yay!

That seems to be what I had minus Uncontrolled. Looks fine to me

While some Foci are the typical staff or sword used for some kind of Attack Power, there are some powers that need magical components, like herbs for a potion or a crystal for some kind of incantation. I think of Focus in this context as "something you need for the power to work". I think of your beetle juice door like this: the wall is a "component" of the power.