Jump to content

WistfulD

HERO Member
  • Posts

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by WistfulD

  1. Hi. I'm about to play in a low-magic setting using Fantasy Hero/ Hero 6e, and am looking for some ideas of what spells a wilderness-oriented 'hedge mage' might have (and suggestions on how to construct each spell). The idea is that the guy is a wilderness expert -- tracker, survivalist, etc., but he supplements his knowledge with various skills of 'the old ways.' This allows him to do things like hide the smoke of a fire, dry out wet clothes, set night time alarms, and... I'm not sure what else. More stuff in the vein. Nothing flashy, quick, or combat related. Anyone have any thoughts? Anyone done anything like this before?

     

    Thanks in advance!

  2. Thanks for the ideas! I'd argue against Life Support being able to negate the effects of an attack. Poison is usually (I thought) written as an NND with Life Support as the special defense. Once the attack takes effect, Life Support can't undo the damage. Furthermore, in any campaign where someone has a VPP, poisons can quickly be eliminated by Life Support: Usable By Others, which is extremely cheap (especially if you can buy it as a 1-point LS for the specific poison you're targeting). This makes poison almost a non-issue. I think it's more fun to make poison and disease something that can easily be prevented in advance, but which requires a lot of points to cure after the fact--it requires the magician (or other VPP user) to make some tactical decisions.

     

    In response to my original question, I get the feeling that Drain is more appropriate than Suppress for an attack that reduces the effectiveness of a poison after the fact. Would y'all agree?

     

    I would say that this is more of a critique of Usable by Others (or unlimited option VPPs) than anything else. Drain would in fact be a better than suppress, although LS likely is more appropriate. But again, it all depends on how poisons are built in your game.

  3. The Entangle in question is completely unbreakable and inescapable by normal physical means (no brute forcing your way out or sliding out with the most flexible of joints or lack of spine (yes, it will even restrain something akin to an octopus or snake in terms of physiology!).

     

    However, it can be teleported or phased out of (with the proper form of Desolidification, natch). There will be some sort of linked Drain/Suppress Teleportation plus Desoldification, but those with the appropriate traits can still escape if they are powerful enough teleporters/phase shifters (by making an appropriate power Roll to push through).

     

    Okay, well, you know your campaign, so I assume you will have some characters powerful enough to endure the suppress and get out. Be real careful with "the only way to get out of this is ____." powers, as they often just become X points that each player now has to spend during character creation to have a defense against (with a suppression resistant teleport, in this instance).

  4. Let's not forget mild kleptomania here -- remember, he'd swiped a general's gun (and was perfectly willing to

    let Radar take the blame for it) in one of the episodes.

     

     

    Major Tom 2009 :sneaky:

     

    Yes, but mental illnesses are based on patterns, and he didn't repeat that action. So he's more of a guy who stole something once, rather than a kleptomaniac.

     

    Either way, it feeds from a more generalized mental complication: an overall attempt to gain power, prestige, symbols of self aggrandizement, etc., but without the efforts or responsibilities (or competence) required to do so. During the Col. Blake years, he's basically Starscream.

  5. Desolid, usable as attack, ranged, 0 end, uncontrolled

    1D6 Entangle, affects desolid, takes no damage from attacks, linked

     

    Unless they have an affects real world (+2) attack, they can't hit it.

    So turn someone desolidified, then entangle them with an desoli-effecting entangle that only they can break out of with their strength, but because the entangle is solid (even though it can affect desolid), and they are not, they need ARW(+2) on their STR? Not bad rule-abuse-fu. Pretty much just highlights the validity of the "!" system, though.

  6. If you had those kinds of points to throw around, maybe some would be invested in power defense.

     

     

    Any power can be recreated by Transform. Killing Attack? Live Target to Dead Target. Blast? Target to KO'd Target. Flash? Target to Blind Target.

     

    To me, the more specific mechanic should be the first choice, so if we can achieve the desired immobility effect with Entangle, let's take that route. Seems like that +1 1/4 effectively creates an "NND Entangle".

    It specifically says you cannot transform someone into a dead someone.

     

    Anyways, Christopher's complaint effectively was that you applied a "only available to X" and "immune to X" modifier on something. To which your response should be, "Duh, that's exactly what I said I just did, didn't you see the reference to Big Stop Sign?"

     

    The rules disallow making things one's opponent can't defend against or escape, but if you add some other escape or defense avenue to it, it could be doable. In the case of entangle, there are plenty of ways to escape other than a damage effect (teleport, desolidification, contortionist), so the only real question is if these are reasonable in your campaign (or cases where you exclude these escapes as well).

  7. I think we've throughly made it socially impossible for the OP to come back (although with nearly 5000 posts, he must have been around long enough to not take it personally). I would love to know what he was thinking or what it was for. Given the number of ways of getting out of a tangle other than damaging it, I can see how eliminating the "break it" option wouldn't automatically be broken, but I have no idea what effect one would be trying to emulate.

  8. Realistically, he has a minor level of cowardice and paranoia, but mostly a penalty in social and observational skills. The gullibility and mindlessly patriotic bits really are part of a more general solipsism--he pays attention to a given situation and reacts (verbally and decisionwise) based on a very self interested interpretation. He thinks the Korean's puting pots in the ground are planting bombs because he happens to be focused on paranoia that week. Note, of course, that he's only the "bad guy" in that situation because he was wrong. He is very much a cartoon bad guy--having whatever flaw the writers needed that week.

     

    I wouldn't give him many penalty points except poor social skills, and probably 10 points total for the cowardice and paranoia. Most of his "flaws" aren't game book complications. He's really unlikable, but it really isn't a penalty to him to be a relatively selfish, self-interested, belittling-to-others, underhanded ferret-face, except that people react negatively to him.

     

    Frank, to me, is very much like his opposite--Sydney. He's not really a character, so much as a plot device. That's why I found Charles Emerson Winchester III an much more relatable and realistic foil, even though I preferred the earlier seasons of the show.

  9. Would one need to buy enough Flight to overcome the effects of falling, or is 1m of Flight good enough, since the character isn't falling? Should I buy enough Flight to (try to) counter terminal velocity, if the character is knocked out (and thus begins falling), then comes to before going splat? Same question with mid-air Knockback? 1m of Flight to counter 1m of Knockback? Thanks for any advice, and if I need to be over in the Ask Steve forum for this one, let me know. :)

     

    You need as much flight as required to counteract whatever wind you might end up going against. That's about it. As for being knocked out, I've never heard anyone suggest that you need more flight speed than the speed you are falling to break a fall. It might take longer (hope you don't wake up 20 ft. from the ground), but that's about it. Of course, if you have some magic "standing on air" thing going on, why not make it inherent? I totally want to see a superhero unconscious, lying on an invisible ledge, with his non-flying buddies going, "okay, how do we get up there to splash him with cold water?"

  10.  In 6e, though, NND is not a standard +1 advantage - the frequency of the defense determines the advantage, which determines the DC, which determines the number of skill levels (or MA DC's) needed to raise damage by 1d6. If rDEF is "common", the result is 5 points per DC. If it is Rare, the result is 10 points per DC. It seems like it could change by game.

     

    Which makes your "NO" comment all the more confusing, since that's exactly what I said. Assuming that the advantage were 1, it would take 2 purchased DCs to make an effective DC for the NND attack, because you have to divide it by 1+total advantage. Whether +1 is the intended advantage is not established, although Steve's ruling suggests that it is +0.

  11. I'm pretty sure a DC is a DC in 6e so it would be two levels to add one DC to any martial attack.

     

    Nope. In 6E, the DCs have to be divided by the Advantage level of combat significant advantages such as AVAD:NND. So in 6E, assuming that the advantage for NND in the martial art strike is +1, the DCs for martial arts DCs or CSLs would be divided by 1+1=2. So 4 CSLs per increased DC.

  12. I think basically it comes down to nerve strike is really low to start with, and even at a heroic level probably should do more.  After all its going to deal 7 stun on average, and even against a normal person that's not much more than an annoyance.  Maybe starting at 3d6 would be better?

     

    Maybe you could keep it at 2D6, but declare it to be just like HKA 2D6, AVAD (NND; +1). Thus it takes 2 DCs to improve by 1 effective DC, however, the actual stun taken is multiplied by a stun modifier roll (or location, if you use hit location rolls). Now that I write this, that actually might be too powerful. Hmmm...

  13. Point of order: A vehicle's size and STR score determine its weight and cargo capacity. However, there are no rules for vehicle (or personal, except for armor) equipment costs, weights, or volume.

     

    Correct. I meant vehicle weight and volume. My comparison game, GURPS 3e, has a vehicle system where you define the vehicle mass and volume, and calculate performance statistics based on the power (in watts, not END) of the motive drivetrain (which you purchase with dollars or the equivalent) to determine accelleration and speed. It is a very good, if exhaustive system, but the complete opposite design philosophy than Hero, where you as, "what are its performance metrics?" and pay for those, and let how it gets them be flavor text.

  14. EGO can be an "All Or Nothing" NND (Defense is having an EGO) for 1/2 less Advantage/more Limitation.

     

    NNDs are usually Rare. However since most living beings have EGO it may be a Very Common defense in the same category of frequency as PD & ED for AVADs.

     

    Detonate: Blast 6d6, Does BODY (+1)(60 active pts); NND (having an EGO, Very Common; -1/2). Total cost: 40 pts.

     

    "The latent energy inside inanimate objects can be harnessed, focused & released violently. Does not work on targets w/ free will."

     

    I have never gotten the hang of NND. A lot of the superhero write-ups (say the three Villians books) have NNDs that violate the rules as I understand them. For instance, I believe (I will have to check when I get home) there is a KA attack in one that is NND: Power Defense (+1). AVAD power defense for a killing attack is +1/2. NND in this instance is a hindrance (any amount of Power Defense eliminates the attack, so it should be +0 instead. Very confusing.

     

    To the OP's question. I would normally say that +0 (or -1/2 as NND) would be fine. However, there are a few things to think about:

    1) In a sufficiently high powered Supers style game, PD, particularly non-resistant PD, might well by in 30s-40s range, while Ego scores may still max out around 20. This is one of those cases like ACV where you have to look at the values that the campaign runs around at before determining the value of the advantage.

    2) In the case of the blast that only effects creatures with Ego scores, this can be as much of an advantage as a limitation. If Mister E's NND attack example was an AoE, he could drop it on a mixed group of enemy drones and hostages/allies, only affecting the drones without the cost or constraints of a Selective AoE. In that situation I would at the very least call it a -0 limitation (much like "only does stun", the advantages and drawbacks balance out).

  15. I would think eliminating the Focus Limitation would make something NOT a thing....

     

    Lucius Alexander

     

    And a reifier of palindromedaries

     

    No, it's only removing the limitations of something being a thing. The Focus limitations can be broken down into a number of factors:

    1. Foci can be seen (obviously or inobviously). The hammer space/bad of holding takes this away, but itself might be seen.

    2. Foci can be taken away (in combat if accessible, if the enemy has you unconcious or something if inaccessible). The hammer space/bad of holding takes this away, but itself might be able to be taken away.

    3. Foci can be broken (usually). The hammer space/bad of holding removes this while the item is in it, but not when used.

    4. Foci require the use of one hand (unless the item has the two-handed limitation, which is seperate). The hammer space/bad of holding does not take this away.

     

    I would think that buying this for heroic level items would be a naked buyoff of the focus limitation, itself with or without focus limitation, and perhaps a including a restrainable, whatever that limitation is called where the effect can be attacked, and recoverable charges (slots, sadly a little "video game inventory"-esque, but I do prefer bounded limitations than a physical volume at least for hammerspace). 

  16. I am somewhat new to Hero, I have been playing and running games for a couple years, but I have never found any guidance for converting CP's into monetary expense.  Nor have I found guidance on build times.

     

    That is very very deliberate and part of the game's design philosophy. The rules for hero are designed to emulate effects, with the the how and why being given over to descriptive text. Likewise, one does not ask where your Punisher knockoff gets the money to buy his guns, only that he paid the cp cost for them (heroic campaigns have a different relationship between characters and equipment). Likewise, vehicles have bodies, armor, and speed and accelleration stats, but they do not have weight or cargo capacity stats.

     

    It is entirely possible to create a point-buy game system that uses a roll low vs. 3D6 resolution system that goes to exquisite length to capture the world in terms of size, mass, dollar value (or the equivalent). A guy named Steve Jackson did just that, and it is called GURPS. That system hass all the rules for creating vehicles (and by extension, bases) that breaks it down to the fraction of a pound, cubic foot, wattage of power used, and dollar or equivalent cost (I am running off knowedge that ends with 3rd edition, so some of my statements might not be accurate for the latest edition). The Hero system chose not to go that route.

     

    The long and short of it is--your moon base takes a length of time to build equal to one moon base's build time, as determined by your GM (or you, if you are the GM). If other gaming systems give you acceptable numbers, that's great.

  17. That's significantly more bounded than the one in the fantasy guide. Neat!

     

    I also like Christopher's discovery that Naked Buyoff (of the focus limitation) is in fact a thing.

     

    I think that's pretty much evidence that there's ways to do this within the rules. :-)

  18. Let me stop you there. Please go back to your post and check the name on those two quoted sections. After doing so, please feel free to revise everything you just said. ^^

     

    La Rose.

     

    Five Posts, two posts, the nearly identical phrasing ("it might surprise you just how much weaker women are than men," "It is surprising just how much stronger men are in upper body strength than women"). It's possible that it isn't sock puppet trolling, but I don't think anyone would apologize for assuming that it is.

  19. The problem, you see, is that 24 damage classes is a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT OF DAMAGE. It's more, I think, than people give it credit for. Damage is doubling with every D6.

     

    That, in the end, is really the question. We've been told that each +1 DC is a doubling. But does that hold up in 1) the builds provided, 2) the game as we play it, and 3) intrinsically does that work within the game as it is structured?

  20.  Women are, of course much weaker than men. While this is common knowledge, it might surprise you just how much weaker women are than men. Women would have a slightly higher dexterity, a slightly lower speed, and maybe some other things I haven't even thought of.

     

    Have you met my wife? Seriously. She's freaky strong. 

     

    While Multi-form strikes me as a perfectly acceptable way to create a character that can change genders, much of your above statement strikes me inaccurate. Yes, on average, women are less physically powerful than men. However, the statistical outliers (very strong women vs. very weak men) seem to average that out a bit. And I live out here in ranching and farming country, where the women are often very physically strong and capable of doing a "man's work" when needed. Which is often.

     

    And I question your assertions about dexterity and speed. I'm pretty quick and nimble for an old guy, but somehow I don't see beating Serena Williams at... well, pretty much anything.

     

    Jason

     

    Don't play into his hands. Seriously, his second post on the site was dedicated to making a undeniably provocative statement about out-of-game controversial issues. You know the playbook for this.

     

    Enjoy your short time here, HT.

  21.   The only time you're going to have to pay for something like XD Movement is if you can pick up items you find during the game, and store them for later (the portable hole / bag of holding effect).  That's not really "hammerspace" as it is traditionally used, at least as I understand it.

     

     

    That is the instance I am talking about, and wanted to know what people would do. XD is an option.

  22. If you can pull it out whenever you want it, then it's not really a Focus.  It might look like a Focus, but it's just the special effect of your RKA.  You always have it with you.  It can't be taken away.  You can leave it somewhere and then suddenly you pull it out again.  You don't really need a power to represent that (other than the attack).

    1) that works for innate abilities, but not for items. How do we give that to items?

     

    2) your point, however, is taken. If this hammerspace itself can't be taken away, than it doesn't make things inobvious, it takes away the focus limitation. Well, we can build it for an unremovable hammerspace, and for a bag of holding.

×
×
  • Create New...