Hugh Neilson

26 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

The other advantage is that by separating the healing from the knockback you can adjust either one with little impact on the other.  If you don’t need as much healing, you can reduce it without affecting the KB, if you want more KB, you can increase that by adding more dice to the blast.

For the specific build I would Link the powers, but it does permit the build itself to focus more on knockback or more on healing. Higher AP (including two linked powers) comes with a higher skill roll penalty, but that is manageable by using -1/4 to reduce the roll by 1 per 20 AP rather than 10.

26 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

@Doc Democracy  I can understand your view, but I think in some ways hiding the details from your players can be contributing to their perceived view.  By hiding the build you reinforce their view the system is too complicated for them to understand.   By doing everything for them you take away the opportunity for them to learn.  I don’t know your players so cannot know the situation, but it seems to me if they were able to build characters on their own they may see the system as more user friendly.

2 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Guarantee that if I did not hide it we would not be playing HERO.  The first few times half the group spent forever pouring over the sheet, taking ages.  There is no inherent desire to gain any mastery of the details, even while being content to play a game I offer.

In my view, Hero is not "a game".  It is a system used to design games. When we require the players to create their abilities using the tome of mechanics, they are being asked to be game designers, not just players or even GMs. It would be quite possible to build spells with the full mechanics but publish a game where those mechanics are largely hidden. We might, for example, see Healing Burst as a spell in such a game described as 2d6 BOD Healing, 4 meter radius centered on caster, does 2  meter knockback (away from the caster) to all undead or demons instead of healing them.  COST X Points; SKILL ROLL: -Y; END: Z.

We could even add that +1d6 Healing and +2 meters Knockback costs +A Points; further -B Skill Roll; further END C, and present the skill roll and END in "per xd6".

The players need never see the complex build behind the scenes.  They know that the base power will heal 1 BOD per 2 points rolled on their 2d6, and blast any Undead or Demons back 2 meters (unless they are mysteriously resistant - perhaps knockback resistance). That is what they need to play a spellcaster with this spell in-game.

This adjusts character design and play to be similar to other games where the design of the characters' abilities is not shared with the players or the GM. While surprising to many Hero fans, lots of players just want to play the game, and do not want to learn the detailed game design mechanics that create their characters' abilities.  It is not wrongbadfun to want to play a game, not design one.

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 When I build this power as two separate powers, I am usually finding it cost less points because I don’t need some of the advantages on the healing and can put more limitations on the blast.  Also, as two separate powers I can also use the unified power limitation on both of them.  

I forgot about Unified Power - good call!

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The end result works the same pretty much the same.

There's a bit of comfort building an unusual ability multiple ways and getting similar costs.  Whichever choice is made is at least in the ballpark.

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Technically it does require two separate rolls, but a GM can easily hand wave that and allow it to use the same roll.   From the players standpoint they roll 4d6 and heal their allies and then roll to knock back any undead in the area.   How is it any less cool for the player when built as two powers.  

I have always allowed a form of "standard effect" that two combined/linked/connected powers use the same rolls. That speeds up gameplay nicely.

Actually, another easy simplifier for this power would be putting the Knockback element on Standard Effect.  If it's a Linked Blast (say 4d6, double knockback), Standard Effect is 8 on the Knockback Dice, so just subtract 2d6 from that 8 (or even apply a standard 7 or 8 and the Undead are always pushed back 2 meters or just knocked down).  The Knockback now becomes very easy to present as just an add-on to the Healing.

I think that "player's standpoint" element is key.  Some players don't care to mine the build intricacies - they don't need to see two powers to run the character. If they are happy with someone else digging through the build complexities, and the player and GM share a common view of how the construct works in gameplay, then only put the necessities on the character sheet.  The chain of advantages and limitations (including limitations on an advantage) will also look complex. In d20, we would just write "Healing Blast" and maybe a bit of how it works.  A Hero "for play" character sheet would go a long way to reducing perceived complexity at the gaming table.

3 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

In most Fantasy Hero games, I have played in undead usually show up at some point.  If you expand it out to demons, then it would be almost always.  They may not show up all the time, but they are usually present.  I would probably put the value of only vs Undead at about -1.  Knockback only would also be about a -1.  If undead are rare than simply increase the value of the limitation.  I have even seen a fair number of champions games where undead show up.  

To me, a -1 Limitation says that this will be in play about half the time.  So about half of the opposition should be Undead or Demons if the limitation is -1.

3 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The fact that healing does body works so poorly is another reason to not use this method.  The chances of doing KB on 2d6 are so small that to me it is just wasting time.  A player should pay for their abilities, but the abilities should have a reasonable chance of working.  This method does not and requires extensive GM intervention for it to be effective.  If I were to allow it I would either count the BODY as if it were a normal attack and subtract 2d6 or consider it to be killing damage and subtract 3d6. In either case 2d6 healing is not going to do anything.  All this is going to do is to slow down the game while the player rolls for something that is unlikely to happen. 

The BOD for Knockback purposes is another issue.  That 2d6 Healing is 20 AP which would be an average 4 BOD roll if it were simply a 4d6 Blast.   An average of 7 (dice rolled) is excessive knockback for simply Does Knockback.  Slap on Double Knockback to get the roll on the dice seems reasonably close to me.

The proposed build is

Healing Wave: Healing BODY 2d6, Doesn't Heal Undead and Demons (+0), Knockback doesn't effect non Undead/Demons (+0), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4), Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+1/2) (40 Active Points); Requires A Divine Skill Roll (11- roll; -1/2), Gestures (Requires both hands; -1/2), Incantations (-1/4) = 18 real points.

It can heal. It cannot heal Undead or Demons.  What limitation would you generally apply to "can't heal Undead or Demons"?

OK, so Power #1 would be Healing BODY 2d6, Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4), 25 AP

Power #2 could be a Hearing Flash but let's use a 4d6 Blast, Does Knockback (it's Fantasy; +1/4), Double Knockback (+1/2), AoE (4 m radius, +1/4), so 40 AP.

Both have Gestures (Requires both hands; -1/2), Incantations (-1/4).  Let's make the Skill Roll -1/20 AP (so -1/4) to get a comparable penalty.

The Healing does not work on undead or demons (-0) and is Linked to the Blast (-1/2), so 10 real points.

The Blast does no STUN (-3/4), no BOD (-0, although it should really get some limitation) and works only against Demons and Undead (call that -1) and Linked to Healing (-1/4), so 10 real points.

20 points in total, averages 8 - 2d6 Knockback and has a lower penalty to the magic skill roll.  Costs a bit more END.  Maybe we don't put "No BOD" on it - it's not saving any points, so why not be able to damage a weak Undead as well?

27 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Why?  The point Hugh was making is that, by making the power only versus undead, you take away it's utility in probably more instances than you gain from it.  It becomes that healing wave that also impacts undead - that is consistent.

 

Hugh was saying that without restricting the knock back, you could use the power to knock back foes at the start of a combat where healing your enemies would not be detrimental back pushing them off a wall, out of a tree, or holding back an angry bear.  Would you tell a player they could not use it like that?  Restrict it's utility with no price discount?

 

Doc

Adding to Doc's elaboration, if I were building this, I would apply "only vs." to the Knockback related advantages only.  With that in mind, it should actually be a significant limitation, at least -1 as there is no question I will encounter at least as any non-Undead that I would like to knock back.

14 hours ago, sevrick said:

Ok I think I have a final version:

 

Healing Wave: Healing BODY 2d6, Doesn't Heal Undead and Demons (+0), Knockback doesn't effect non Undead/Demons (+0), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4), Does Knockback (+1/4), Double Knockback (+1/2) (40 Active Points); Requires A Divine Skill Roll (11- roll; -1/2), Gestures (Requires both hands; -1/2), Incantations (-1/4)

 

Real Cost: 18

End Use: 4

 

Thanks for you help I think this will work for me. If you have any last tips, I think this what I am going with.

2d6 Healing will average 7, which is 3(.5) BOD.  The Knockback should likely be based on "count normal BOD".  The BOD healed is comparable to a 4d6 Blast, which would be reasonable (base of 4 DC).  Allowing it on the normal (average 7) roll is a much greater advantage.

As to the "+/- 0", I think they are reasonable in this case.  Yes, it prevents the Knockback affecting your teammates.  It also prevents it affecting the guards on the wall of the castle we want to storm, the bandits sniping from the trees and the charging bear.  ("But you'd have to heal them" is a big fat "so what?" at the start of combat.

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I am sure that the rules specifically say that stun only attacks do no knockback, but as a GM I would allow a power that is stun only to do knockback if it were bought to do knockback.  After all, its the impact that does the knockback, not the lethal damage so its not inconceivable, its just not how the system normally works.  You'd just count the Body as if it were being dealt to see if knockback occurs, even though no Body damage is done.

 

Incidentally, different discussion, but this is why I think Stun Only should be a -¼ limitation: you're getting less for your points, don't do knockback, deliver no momentum (cannot push a button for example) and only in certain sorts of games is dealing no lethal damage a drawback.  The drawbacks seem to outweigh the questionable benefits.

To my mind, STUN Only was set as a +1/4 advantage offset by -1/4 No Knockback because it will not cause permanent injury (nice in Supers) or damage loot (nice in Fantasy, but the decision was driven by Supers).

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

I am wondering if you really need 4d6 Healing.  On the average 4d6 Healing will heal 14 BODY.  That is a lot of damage.  If you reduce the power to 2d6 healing that is still healing 7 BODY.  Unless this spell is meant to bring people who are down back to full that should be enough.

I believe that in 5e it will heal 14 CP of BOD, so 7 BOD and in 6e it will heal 14 CP, halved because BOD is a defensive ability in 6e.

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Then change the words. "Does not heal undead'.

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I am not sure that helps any.  If the healing doesn't take effect, then there's not a roll, and hence no knockback.  If you don't do anything to the target... you don't do anything to it.

Given that this is +/-0,. I would allow it as "knocks back, but does not heal, Undead".  Recall that Doc is seeking to make the ability work, not to impose roadblocks.

2 hours ago, sevrick said:

It would have to be killing attack. Since Blast does mostly STUN and you need a decent amount of BODY to knockback.

 

It seems making it a combine power would be the way to go. Unless there is a heal as damage Advantage to represent positive energy damage found in many fantasy RPGs.

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Don’t forget that you roll an extra dice to determine KB when using killing damage.

The original construct was 53 AP. If we go with a 4m radius (+1/4), Selective (+1/4), it can be 7d6 normal or 2d6+1 KA.  That's an average of 7 BOD - 2d6 (average roll knocks them down but not back) or 8 BOD - 3d6 (they will only be knocked down about 25% of the time).  If we tack on Double Knockback, now we can have 5d6 normal or 1 1/2d6 KA. The normal attack will average 10 BOD - 2d6 so it will be rare that they are not at least knocked prone.  Killing will average 5.5 x 2 = 11 less 3d6, so only knocked down on average.

It would be a campaign groundrule to have healing damage the undead (and what would heal them?), in which case the GM would have to assess whether knockback is a possibility.  I note that even D&D/Pathfinder have waffled between "it heals the living and damages the undead" and "it heals the living or damages the undead, not both with one use".

12 hours ago, bcwhite said:

From 6e2 pg 57:
 

 

What is used for the OCV of the character making the block?  Specifically, for a "martial block" with a weapon, is it still the blocker's base OCV or can it include some skill levels in that weapon?

Skill levels apply as normal.  Skill levels with Swords could be applied to the character's OCV when using a sword to block.

14 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Another thing I wanted to point out even though we’re talking about Hero System, other gaming systems have seem to miss the mark at different things on representing genre. I ran across a House Rule on MSH because as RAW, High Strength Characters like the Hulk have an easier time to grab Spiderman. And the House Rule address that you don’t see that happen often in the Comics.  (FWIW Speedsters get shorted in that game too.) iirc, at least in Fourth under translation follies this brought up. Some things don’t work as well in the game as it does in the Comics. I don’t think that it’s a problem as much a something to remember. 

Transitioning things between media always carries issues that "some things" don't work as well.  Weekly TV is much better at supporting an ensemble cast than a movie franchise.  The printed page and the screen support different elements (Supers can keep those full-face masks on; actors need to convey facial expressions - plus we did not pay for a Big Name to hide their faces constantly).

The first example I always think of is "splitting the party".  Having each member of the team go off to do something different works great in print and on screen. Not so much when the GM and 1 player at a time are playing and the rest of the group is just watching.

19 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

But I believe we are forgetting, Champions is a ROLE-PLAYING Game, not a Comic or TV show or Movie. The purpose of it is to have fun, making a story is just a portion of having fun. While The Flash may be completely unhittable to the point that even a Phalanx system that shoots a 1000 rounds a second cannot hit him, that is not something you would have in a game. Characters have to have vulnerabilities and be able to be hit and knocked out, and even possibly killed. Without this what is the point of playing if there is no chance of losing.

While there needs to be some chance of losing in a game, there's not much drama or tension in a book, comic, TV show or movie if there is no chance of the protagonist losing either.  Especially in serialized fiction, where we pretty much know that the Hero will survive and likely come out on top, efforts to create suspense over the success or failure take a lot of work.

When we narrowly define "success" and "failure", it becomes that much harder.  Death is not the only way to lose.  Combat is not the only resolution to conflicts.

If the expectation of the game is that the heroes will largely resolve conflicts in combat - the combat encounters will define success and failure, we can't have Unhittable Flash and Unhurtable Superman.

But if their opponent is Lex Luthor, non-combat corporate kingpin investing massive resources in an aura of legitimacy and seeking the Presidency, Flash can't speed him away and Supes can't punch him out of office. 

Well, they COULD, I suppose. Either could knock him out, or even snuff out his life, with no effort at all.  But that would not be a "win" in the game, because "beat Luthor in combat" is not the "victory condition", to coin a phrase.

If we are going to run a game of Silver Age Supers, so powerful that no opponent can hope to prevail in combat, then we need to design our game around challenges that are not resolved by combat. Flipping that around, if we are expecting to run a game where the primary source of tension and drama is conflict resolution by combat, then the PCs cannot be Silver Age Supers for whom combat results are a foregone conclusion.

9 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

the one that shows up and automatically disarms and captures all the opponents creates problems.

Edited above.  If one character, or the entire group, render combat meaningless, I see three choices:

 - Their characters need to be toned down to match the game.  This is probably the only real answer if only one character is problematic.

 - The opposition needs to be cranked up to match the characters.  If it's only one overpowered character, arranging for every opponent to have someone who can deal with that one problem character and not overpower the rest is tough.  "It seems like EVERY villain team and agent squad has a kryptonite-based weapon".

 - Combat is no longer the focus of the game. The challenge moves to finding the opponents so that they can be automatically disarmed and captured, or preventing them using their out of combat resources to avoid punishment for their crimes. Only one character?  Funny how something ALWAYS comes up to distract him so he has to go deal with an off-screen issue, just before combat, isn't it?

8 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Well if you want to state that your speedster has no way of being hit by a bullet (even with a 3 with games that consider 3 to always hit and 18 always miss), then give him Desolification (0 END, Continuous, Always On, Not Through Barriers, not when unconscious, and possible not when stunned) with the special effect that he always dodges the attack. That way there is no chance at all for the attack to hit him.

 

Now you might mention what about Effects Desolid. I usually will not allow that advantage while at the same time making Desolification have a realistic effect that can affect it. In the case of a speedster's Desolification the way to affect him/her would be Area Effect or Mental Attacks.

 

But all in all, it depends on the power level of your characters. Should they be WORLD OR EVEN GALAXY PROTECTING HEROES, their power level will probably make it rather easy for them to have such things as they most likely will be over 800 points. But should you have your characters be kids just learning their power, then definitely not as they will probably be only 300 points and many times even lower.

Affects Solid World is also pretty pricy.

At standard power levels, "most attacks can't touch me" is likely overpowered. In a game at 800 points, perhaps we should be pulling out the APG for 100% Damage Reduction for our Speedster who reacts so rapidly that most attacks can never connect.

I like the playing card model.  One variant: each player gets one suit (A - K) and shuffles them.  Flip top card - A to 10  = Seg 1 - 10 ; J = 11; Q = 12, K = PS12 recovery.  If they move on that segment, they act.

After 13 cards, shuffle again.  They get their actions in a turn, but without the standard ordering.

One variant - no Kings; PS12 always happens at the shuffle.

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well I think there might be a false dichotomy being promoted here of either you are really tightly built with every point squeezed to its limit to make the most efficient and effective character possible... or you make a concept character that is a hapless clod incompetent in every way.  I see it more as a combination of elements.  You can have a fairly effective conceptual character and a conceptual efficient character.  

 

The character who builds in less efficient portions (such as the 10 CON mentalist) might not have quite as many points to spend on everything but its not crippling, either.  And a tight concept might be more effective than the super efficient build simply because it is tight and works well as a package.  And of course, there's the effect of role playing, where even if a character isn't the most powerful combat machine imaginable, they have other aspects and the game is about more than beating up the next bad guy.  I mean, ideally.

 

And then there's the GM who has the power to make things right.  A good GM is not like a computer game, they can adjust the encounters, setting, events, and circumstances to give the "weaker character" a chance to shine and be useful or important even in the combat they may not excel in.

I think all that is being asserted is that the system (or the GM) should not penalize certain concepts by forcing that concept to be incompetent.  The classic example has been a "trained human" in Supers. When the typical character whose concept has nothing to do with being super-tough, or super-agile, or super-fast, can have a 23 STR, 28 CON, 26 DEX and 5-6 SPD, but we look to that "highly trained normal" and say "well, he can't have more than a 20 STR, 20 CON, 20 DEX and 4 SPD - and even that is pushing it", we forced that character to be underpowered compared to other concepts - especially in pre-6e when DEX was essential to CV.

Either the game needs to be structured to allow a character within the "normal human" parameters to be a viable character - like they are in the source material - or we have to allow that such characters are not limited to "normal human" parameters.  Or we invalidate that concept.

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Gee, I love how you translate what I said into "my character must be more powerful than yours."   

 

Several of the concepts I mentioned, like the speedster, are well known in comics.  If your concept is a comic book speedster, you can't do it.  

Christopher says it well below.  All of those concepts appear in the comics and are not overpowered compared to their teammates or their opponents. Characters with those concepts also appear in Hero Games materials  Their concepts are compromised to the extent necessary to be balanced with other characters. The weather controller does not blast off with a combined attack holding 6 campaign-maximum DC powers at once. The speedster is not so fast that she can resolve the entire encounter before the other characters can blink.  Mentalist snipers get vetoed. "Normal humans" with no visible defenses get Combat Luck or similar abilities.  Why?  Because these constructs perform in-game in a manner comparable to the source material.

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well, let's put it this way: if your concept is the full potential of a comic book speedster when logically followed through to their natural consequences and the way they are on occasion depicted... nobody has that many points and you cannot build that character.

 

But you can build a speedster that acts much like a comic book speedster in most of their encounters.  No, there's no chance anyone can shoot their freeze ray gun faster than the Flash can dodge it.  No, Mirror Master could not reach over and push buttons on his wrist before the Flash could run around the world seven times, eat a pizza, and read a book, then stop the button pushing.

 

And both of those things happen in the comics: the freeze ray goes off before Flash acts, Mirror Master pushes his silly buttons before the Flash can stop him.

BINGO - and part of the game is concepts that are consistent with the source material.  That includes being challenged by threats that challenge them in the source material.

Back in the '70s, a lot of DC characters were written as nearly omnipotent, and a lot of their stories were not combat-focused. Instead, they had to use their skills to figure out how the Bad Guy was avoiding or neutralizing them, and the Bad Guy was then one-punched.  We could build a game like that, but it's not what most players envision from a Supers game.  They look more for '70s Marvel, which is where the genre evolved, where the Bad Guys are credible opponents in combat.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Better balance does not harm players who build to concept, does it?

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

There's areas where it can.

 

1.  The concept is implicitly fairly flexible.  Say the concept is "weather control."  OK.  Blast (or RKA), electrical.  Maybe Cold-based, too, maybe with RedPen.  Change Environment...wind speed, temperature, visibility, laying down an ice sheet might be movement impairment.  And most of these are AoE, so building everything in as 1 power might be VERY expensive.  Maybe an MP...but at least you're throwing in the slot costs.  You'd also be limited to what you could do at one time.  Likely some extra senses...partially penetrative on sight group, to see through fog or snow or the like.  

 

2.  Related but not quite the same...where you're looking at an expensive power that's somewhat outside the norm.  The Change Environment above.  Or, when you need to use 2 fairly expensive powers together...Mind Scan + Telepathy, for example.  Drop the scan, you lose the mental lock, so you need to have both active at the same time.  Clairsentience and Teleport is another.  The concept is something like the Correspondence Mage...distance is an illusion.  Well, that Clairsent is gonna need Targeting, and maybe a few other things...gets pricey fast.  And you've got to keep it up while you teleport.

 

3.  The concept in the source material makes SERIOUS use of authorial fiat.  Lots of low-defense martial arts types never get hit.  Well...in game, a 7- attack roll still succeeds 1 time in 6, so the defenses can't be SO low that the character gets clobbered when it happens, because it will happen.  Decently regularly.  

 

4.  The concept doesn't translate very well to phased combat.  Speedsters, high mobility types generally.  Someone who can lay the smack and move away...that's hard to balance.  

 

I'm sure I haven't exhausted the list...

So, basically, when you want a concept that will make your character excessively powerful for the game, and dwarf the other characters.  I can live with that not being attainable.

1.   Lots of comic book characters have weather powers, using one effect at a time.  Your concept of a weather-based character can be achieved.  The concept of a character who can do many things at the same time making the other PCs irrelevant and crushing the opposition should not be achievable.

2.   So my concept is that I can attack them from a distance/from hiding, they cannot retaliate and I always win.  Again, no thanks.

3.   This is where we see constructs like Combat Luck which simulate that Author Fiat.  Pre-4e, we used to use a similar concept built around Damage Reduction.

4.   Again, where the concept is "my character cannot be beaten", the concept is unsuitable for the game.  Often, "I attack then move far away" is readily countered with "I go inside a building"; "I go somewhere he can't see and wait to ambush him" or "my sole goal in life was not to knock him out - I leave in the other direction (with the loot I stole) while he's way far away".

If your "concept" is "my character is more powerful than the other PCs", then I think you have missed the point of a cooperative RPG.

On 12/9/2023 at 8:25 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I was always more focused on the character i was trying to make rather than ruthless efficiency, so I built bricks with 13 DEX and energy projectors with 11 CON.  Was it the best possible build with secondary characteristics?  No, but it fit the character design I had, no matter what the breakpoints were.  This guy wasn't especially durable no matter how many points of END I'd get for free, so he had a low CON.  But I admit that I was an outlier in this.

On 12/9/2023 at 9:24 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Yep.

 

Most or my characters were like Christopher's:  not particularly "effective" except dor their particular Schtick.

 

They all ended up with solid Endurance and often higher ED than PD, though, just because I thoight Constitution-- the over well robustness and wellness of a character- was a hallmark of the broad-shouldered, square-jawed, chiseled,cheeks HERO type.  We disnt even use the Stunning rules for the first few years: the high CON was just part of a HERO concept for me.

 

Heck, I _still_ do that.

 

 

13 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

 

Completely agree with the above. For me it was all about making the concept work within the world and always has been. I had a player that would min/max the hell out his characters for my games, and then get a bit burnt when I took advantage of their "point saving limitations." Kind of funny when I think back on it. 

Our group has typically focused more on concept than min-max.  At the same time, most players don't like discovering their character is "the weakest link" in game.  Hero presents itself as "build the character you want". This should come with "and your concept will be playable in the game".  When certain concepts have a significant efficiency advantage (or disadvantage), players' ability to play the concept they want is eroded.

Better balance does not harm players who build to concept, does it?

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Its amazing how easy it is to get by without the internet.  Do without it a few days and you barely even miss it.

And yet here you are on the Internet...

All dimensions of Barrier can be changed, so that element can work.  There's a lot of handwaving required, though. 

Once we tack on CE's "suffocation" from APG, it becomes a better choice, in my view, although we still have no direct mechanic for changing the mode of movement used to pass through a CE area.

"Suffocation" is, on the one hand, something missing from the core rules.  On the other hand, it is pretty slow in game terms.

Sounds like Change Environment to me.  IIRC, suffocation made it into APG I as an added to CE.

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

I was referring to concept wise, not actual ability rules. I normally will have the player tell me what type of character they would like to play: perhaps something like this elven Druid/Ranger (Archer) character that they used to play in a D&D game. I then ask them what the character was capable and create similar attributes to their FH character. I always make sure they understand that FH is a different rules and things work differently, but even a little similarity makes it easier for new players to play. 

This works well if you can isolate two things:

 - the hooks - what is the core of the character, to the player.   Maybe that's "great at archery and shapeshifts into animals" - spells can go by the wayside.

 - the wishes - what does the player wish the character could do, but D&D does not facilitate it (or reserves it for a much higher level).  Maybe "I'd rather she was a Dwarf, but their stats are all wrong" or "I wish she could take on hybrid animal forms".  HELLO HERO!

1 minute ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Thanks, but in all honesty, I didn't have a television until the mid-80s.  I dont think I have ever seen it.

 

 

Comic book, Duke...and I know you don't read them, but they had an extended run at one time where trying to figure out how they got from 2 or three issues back to here was an adventure all its own!

I always liked having a couple of major scenarios going on at once, with an occasional one or two game session buried in there.

On 11/16/2023 at 7:27 PM, Khymeria said:

First I call each session an “issue” and not “episode.”

 

Back in the day, I had the series tracked, complete with occasional Annuals.

On 11/16/2023 at 6:07 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Dude (the gender-neutral one that my generation picked up and I failed to outgrow); I _wish_ I knew how to answer this.  So far, I am with Taylor:  "yes."    

 

 

I...  I dont know what to tell you.  I just sort of throw some things on the table in the first couple of sessions; whatever piques the player'a curiosity, I run with.  When the game bogs down or they show signs of losing interest, I make hard turn and see what happens.

 

I start with an investigation of a robbery of a museum by costumed villains who have recently been seen scoping out an observatory, and we end up in an abandoned silver mine where an ancient Aztec God is being stylistically summoned by masked luchadores.   Then dog-sized robots are terrorizing the city, ripping up sidewalks and taking up soil samples then disappearing down the storm drains which leads to very disoriented clones showing up to their doppleganger's jobs- even when their dopplegangers are there, which just kind of naturally leads to hibiscus plants spitting incendiary seed pods because the local gymnasium is a front for an area-old breeding program attempting to selectively breed immortals, but only because a mastemind villain my players killed in the '80s is involved.  Of course, no one knows that until  the boring stone stolen from the Neanderthal tool display at the museum is found hanging from the branches of the Christmas tree that was wreaking havoc downtown, and suddenly one of the heroes finds a flyer for an old fish cannery in a hobo camp full of zombies and remembers the old cannery is now some zany new-age cult and decides the party needs to investigate their church and learns there may be a connection to the abandoned submarine base out in the lake, and now it is time,to tie everything together, somehow, because someone has discovered the hypo recorder and is steadily screaming to his fellow players "Do _not_ put me in the comfy chair!"

 

 

yeah.  Not kidding.  That's how it goes, almost every time.  But I can't tell you how it happened, or where it came from; just that it's a lot of fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear!

 

I left out the bit where to clones started exploding.

 

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found some inspiration from 1970's Defenders...

I always wonder why someone would use one system to try to emulate another. Nothing will emulate a D&D game like playing D&D, so if that is the desired play experience, play D&D.

I recently read a Pathfinder scenario with some Lovecraftian influence.  It tried to bolt on a sanity mechanic (noted as optional). Given what the characters (L9 at the start of this section of an AP) should already have witnessed, their mental health should already have taken a hit.

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

He didn't have the endpoints. Doing it properly would have entailed a long conversation with Peter before they started to finalize the details and instructions to not speak up and change things. If a typical group of players can discuss how to use a wish for 10-15 minutes before giving the GM the final version, a supposed Sorcerer Supreme candidate should be able to plan one out also.

If a typical movie portrayed a typical PC group over-analyzing micro decisions, we would likely have stopped producing movies a long time ago.

True.  And there is also a predecessor in Dr. Strange 183/Sub-Mariner 22/Hulk 126 before the Sub-Mariner group.

The Defenders name started in Marvel Feature, with Doc, Namor and Hulk.