Christougher

The one I've used is rather similar to your proposal, with a couple other added factors: SPD*2 + OCV + DCs + DCV + (PD+ED)/4 + Stun/10 Damage Reduction was figured into Stun. Chris.

I don't know what 6E says on the subject, but it's in the space between Dispel and Focus. Of course, I've built Dispel and added the Does Body advantage to build a power explicitly to destroy things. Chris.

I had this thought earlier in the thread but no idea how to make this distinction. How would you show or do this with game mechanics? Add in a Difficult to Dispel advantage? Chris.

Yes, any item creation system is going to be influenced by the magic system behind it. But you need a system before you can influence it. It's probably smarter to presume the minimum amount of things; adding restrictive elements is probably easier than removing them. Picking and choosing from some of NSGs questions, what exactly is required to enchant an item? The item. The enchantment. Some time. Some materials. Some cost. If the item is created just from components like most temporary or charged items, no problem. With permanent items, is there a difference (or benefit gained) from enchanting an item as it is created? For now, no difference - it's an optional rule that can be added later. The enchantment spell has its own requirements and writeup, and those conditions still need to be fulfilled. The Active Point cost of the spell is a useful (but possibly imperfect) tool to base process of enchantment mechanics on. The Real Cost is a similar imperfect tool to prevent assembly line production of items. The time required to enchant can be part of the enchantment itself, or other time and actions to "make everything right". A suggested time for temporary/charged items is one day of uninterrupted work per 25 Active Points, with permanent items taking a week per 25 Active Points. If interruptions are allowed, increase the time by one step down the time chart. Distracted now, more later.

True. But one must have rules in place before deciding when and how to break them. Or are you proposing special effect based power ratings? Chris.

If a power with Charges has Restricted Recovery, how does that interact with the default rule of charges 'resetting overnight'? Does the character lose all previous charges in the morning and have to perform the Restricted Recovery action to gain them each day? Or in the interests of game balance, dramatic license, etc. does he keep the charges until they're all used, and then perform the Restricted Recovery. (When the restricted recovery involves a human sacrifice, it's important to figure out how fast the bodies start piling up.) Chris.

First proposed rules for the system: Time: Requires 1 day of constant work (or one week interruptible work) per 10 Active Points in the power. Increase by one step down the time chart for permanent items. Ingredients: Requires 1 "hard to get" component per 25 Active Points in the item. Something specific made, creature killed, rare import, etcetera that limits production of the item. In a high-magic campaign that supports component shops, the cost of component is 5 times multiplier. Chris.

For a Fantasy game, I provided approximate examples for what different coinage would buy, on almost an order of magnitude scale: The cheapest coins bought meals, the next paid for a private room. Coins of the next type would buy a weapon, the highest paid for suits of armor. A similar scale to what Chris Goodwin suggested, but the low end would probably be higher on the base scale. Purpose or reuse will have an effect on cost too. Single use temporary items would be bottom end, then charged/reusable, then permanant items, possibly with another sliding scale for "power level" of. A one-use total invulnerability is not as good as a permanent but minor protection, most of the time. Chris.

Unless 6E changed that rule, it was always 'Stun before, Body after'. So you multiplied StunX / Hit Location times the body of the entire attack, then applied defenses. Any Body that got through defenses was then multiplied for Hit Location. Chris.

What the Mouse said. This is an awesome idea! While this specific book is not on my list, I support the idea. Chris.

Fair point re: +1 StunX. I wonder if that would justify lowering +1 StunX to a +1/4 advantage. But on my list, swords don't have the +1 OCV they used to; I gave that to maces instead With swords, you need to hit with the edge or point; with a mace any hit is a good hit. It was also a deliberate attempt to make the sword NOT the go-to weapon in the campaign. Chris.

I just uploaded the weapons spreadsheet mentioned: http://www.herogames.com/forums/index.php?/files/file/57-weaponsxls/ However, Nusoard's suggestion of hammers with Penetrating/maces with +1 Stun is a really good idea I might incorporate. Chris.

It works. In previous editions, Normal Characteristic Maxima being a default was an issue Chris.

If this is the same story I heard... The radioactive stuff was from an old Xray machine. It was discovered by a radiation detector going off at a highway checkpoint - the detectors over 100 feet away on the road going the other direction. And the poor staffers weren't properly trained how to react when the sensor went off... Chris.

I usually hide the unnecessary columns (about half of them) in the spreadsheet unless I'm working on it. Which of them need more/better explanation? Chris.

Or make it official. There is a different damage spread and center, making d6-1 more useful than 1/2d6. I inserted that as a 'phantom DC' in my own fantasy weapons list to give a little more spread/difference between weapons. Gary C already has a copy of my list, maybe he can voice his opinion of it. Making it official would break the 1d6K = 3d6 Normal ratio, but given 6Es changing prices of powers (I'm a 5E grognard, don't know if KA was affected.) It might just work out to make 1 DC Killing 4 AP and a full 1d6K 16 points. Chris.

Actually, previous editions of Hero allowed that option, called Simplified Healing. It was still no range and had the cap. Make no mistake, Healing is a force multiplier, not detractor. Look at all the MMOs and see how prevalent healing abilities are (sadly, players willing to be the healing bots are fewer...) Negating one or more of your opponents actions with one of your own is not a sacrifice. Cumulative is an interesting alternative idea rather than the official Reduce Reuse Interval. I'm gonna ponder it, someone else may do the math. Chris.

If you're *that* bored... There's that old Project 3000 Names thread. You could troll it for ideas. I've made probably 500 characters from just the names on that list. Chris.

I feel safe commenting that pretty much all weapons are better and more effective when used in massive formations. Polearms are another well cited/well debated example of. It would not be entirely unfair to add a +1 bonus of some form for every doubling of number of users to reflect this. Chris.

Wait a minute. Your mooks have enough defense to ignore a game cap attack? Count me out. Chris.

What would I backport from 5th and 6th to 4th... Increase in base points to 350 or 400. The new options in various Disadvantages. Boost, a Suppress style version of Aid. Flash repriced and changed to Segments not Phases. Hand Attack repriced with required Limitation. Healing/Regeneration adder for Regrow Limbs and Resurrection. AVAD unifying AVLD and NND. Area Effect constant instead of based on AP. Requires Roll unifying Activation and RSR. Variable Power Pool decoupled Pool cost from Control cost. Probably more, but those are what I think of offhand. Chris.

Yes.

I think all the board links are now broken with the change in forum software... Chris.

Duplication with the appropriate differing duplicates modifier. Chris.