Hugh Neilson

I find Psych Lims are free points if the player is a decent role player already, not so much if he is one of those "best tactics and personality be damned" players. When the Overconfident PC takes Firewing out of the equation with the Incantation: "Come on, FlameFace - you and me, one on one! Or are you CHICKEN?" Then, when Firewing targets him on Phase 12 (yes, he made it to Phase 12), asks if he can roll an Ego Roll to Abort to Dodge in the hopes of getting a PS12 recovery? Wow - that is a gaming moment remembered 25 years later. Would the player have played it out that way anyway? Probably - that was the character. Would I have made him roll an Ego Roll to dodge? Unlikely at best. Same character: GM: What's your DCV? Player: 4 Other Player: 4?? How can you have a DCV of 4? What's your DEX? Player: 23. My DCV could be 8. But this nobody can't be a real threat or I would have heard of him, so why put any effort into dodging? DCV 4.

I do prefer things to flow more naturally from the game, but decent complications will flow into the game pretty naturally. Of course, if our heroes are on a Space Opera extended scenario, it's pretty tough for frail old Aunt Nellie to show up. But she could be struggling to pay the mortgage while Our Hero can't be reached, and when he gets back, she's one step away from foreclosure. That Complication has not shown up for quite a while, relative to its frequency? It will likely be more significant when it does rear its head. I'm also leery of Hunteds, DNPCs, etc. on more than 8-. They need to be super-engaging to show up more than half of the time, especially if you're dealing with 4 or 5 players. Imagine if even the Joker featured in 50% of stories where Batman appeared. Even 8- is a lot, really. 14- becomes like some of those Supers cartoons where virtually every episode involves this villain or group of villains on the other side. Mind you, that depends on whether you view that as "11- every time we game for three hours" or "11- that they will at least put in an appearance or be seen off-screen at some point in time over this multi-session arc". It's more an art than a science. If I got frequency on vulnerabilities or limitations right, they'll show up with appropriate frequency. If not, maybe swapping out Frost King for Lightning Lord every now and then, or just equipping VIPER agents with experimental "new SFX" weaponry can do the trick. You told me electricity was very common - that means you are either a human lightning rod, or a lot of villains use electrical devices, have electrical powers, hit you with downed power lines or knock you back into electric fences and generators. I do like 6e lowering the number of complications so we can limit them to central character concept issues. When everyone does not need a couple of Hunteds just to make the character sheet balance, it's easier for those that remain to be more central to the game.

Building the bubble as a vehicle is a different possibility. The barrier approach seems a lot more straightforward than summoning a vehicle with no independent movement.

Without looking at my prior post, +2 points of rPD or rED for 3 points, so 12/12 is 24/2 x 3 = 36 +1 BOD costs 1 point (but I'd go 0 BOD - it breaks and it vanishes). It starts 1m long and 1m tall. I want it 7m long and 7 m tall so it has the target and 3 meters from the target in all directions. +1m of length or height costs 1 CP so 12. That's 49 - I am pretty sure I had a different number above. YUP - edited. Another 10 points to make it non-anchored is 59. Hero 6e v1 p Later on that same page So I believe that you are anchored and you do need LS if you want the air to stay in the barrier. If you want to create the globe in space, then you need to create some air, which would be LS, AoE. I'd suggest that is also the case if you want any new air so the target does not suffocate later as he uses up all the oxygen. Change Environment is an interesting option, but would need to be AoE, 0 END and Persistent, so it would likely be even more pricy. Limiting the LS to only one type of atmosphere could be similar to expanded breathing - instead of being able to breathe in one unusual environment, this allows those who can breathe in one particular environment to breathe.

I think that, once we say it is important to be able to imprison a target, the ability to imprison needs to be paid for. Physical manifestation means the source of the power can be damaged/destroyed, not "it also imprisons a target for free as long as it stays up and running". That puts it back to a Barrier. 12 rPD and rED costs 36 points, and 1 BOD costs 1 point (note that it could have 0 BOD and just wink out if its defenses are breached, so 37 points so far. It's non-anchored, so that's +10 points. It needs to be at least 4m long or tall to englobe, so let's make it 7 m long and tall (12 more points). That's 59 points, and it should now englobe a character in a 4 m radius (so it can be used smaller to just fit a target, or up to 4m radius to cover multiple targets). Now it needs that Life Support, +1/4 4 m radius, Linked to the bubble (OK, "ends if bubble popped"). It probably also needs to be Persistent or Uncontrolled to just keep going even if the creator leaves, is KOd, etc. [COSTS EDITED] Given it only needs to be able to Englobe prisoners, it could take Extra Time (or, as Doc suggests,, be two MP slots, making it take a bit of extra time anyway), have Limited or No Range on the barrier, be Inaccurate (-1/2, 0 OCV) - lots of "not in combat" limitations could reduce the real cost, but not the active point cost.

What about AoE radius Life Support with a Physical Manifestation? Tack on a bit of Flight if it''s self-propelled. Is it important that the bubble shield or imprison the target? If not, that may do the trick.

I recall one game where the PCs were doing quite badly, and one player noted "I think this is one of those battles we just are not intended to win." It was not - I had no grand plan for what would happen if they lost. So I had to do some thinking between games. As I recall, the villains developed a plan which would best be served by capturing the PCs, by which time some of their foes were no longer on-scene. So, of course, the players "knew" they were supposed to lose that first battle because they were overwhelmed. In another, they made some poor tactical choices (had they seen the villains' character sheets and known which opponents they should have focused on first, of course ). These opponents had no reason to do anything but depart, having beaten the PCs down (or maybe that was when they found themselves in an arena faced with the deadly Giant Slug, perhaps the finest miniature ever created with SillyPutty (I may be biased ). I had not intended to re-use that particular hodgepodge of villains, but the table talk on how they would approach the combat differently next time clearly said there HAD to be a next time. There was, and their tactics resulted in an easy victory, but a vary satisfying one for the players, facing the same opposition in similar terrain and winning handily. I liked the way the old V&V modules always had an "if the players lose" segment right after each major combat, typically setting up a "last chance - win or it is all over" rematch. Of course, as a GM, when we come up with that fantastic scene if the PC's lose, now we get really invested in a PC loss...

6e v2 p81, a Running Throw with 40 extra STR (the first 10 used to carry the average weight target) is 64 meters distance. At least a full half-move is required, but you want the grab early in your move anyway, so no big deal there. 6e v2 p 62: A standing throw would be 32 meters. Your GM may be open to waiving that rule given the nature of the Flying Grab, though, as well as the advantages on your Flight (if there is no exception in the maneuver description - I am guessing not as you did not know where Running Throw was), or may consider this a reasonable tradeoff for not needing a separate action, and attack roll, to Throw the target. I would have no issue with the maneuver - lots of good reasons above. I'd want to establish how the mechanics would work - they would work the same way for anyone else using a similar maneuver, such as a Grab-By. There are also rules for augmenting STR with movement on 6e v2 p 25, but I don't think these would be very effective given your existing high STR. I would consider using these to augment throwing distance, though, perhaps without requiring you to sacrifice the movement given the nature of the maneuver adding your velocity to the target's velocity.

Exactly the problem. The purpose of limitations and complications/disadvantages is to drive a better story. I like your description of the limitation "coming into play". The corollary to the player who wants limitations but does not want to be limited is the GM who would say, instead, "when their limitation is used against them", the classic "player vs GM" mentality. The player chooses what powers the character will have, and therefore chooses the effect they should have. Having chosen to play a character with those specific powers, limited in these specific manners, I would say the player has provided guidance to the GM that they want to see situations where these abilities are useful and relevant to the game, to the character's advantage, and situations where their limitations arise, causing greater challenges to the character. As long as "I need the points" is accompanied by "this limitation makes some game sense" and "I am willing to deal with the drawbacks", well and good. If it's accompanied by "so I will tack on a limitation that makes no sense" or "but I don't want any consequences to arise from the limitation", that's an issue. Who chose that power? If I don't want to play a slow character with no movement options in combat, then I build an agile flyer or a speedster, not a lumbering Brick.

If those who are not experts should have no voice, what does that suggest about the merits of allowing everyone to vote? Or even freedom of speech?

The key here is that the player gets that the -1/4 limitation is not just point savings - it means that the limitation will reduce the effectiveness of the power. It is, in some way, a drawback - by setting the limitation at -1/4, the player is saying "This is not just a special effect with trivial or no mechanical impact - I want to see this used against my character on occasion to create a greater challenge". How much greater a challenge? How often is "occasionally"? Well, if one is higher, the other should be lower, and taken together they should have some impact, but not huge for a -1/4 limitation, on the game.

While I am not sure I see much benefit either, it seems like the right to firearms, generally touted as "necessary should a government become a tyranny" seems a pretty clear indicator that a violent solution is a choice which is desired, even enshrined, to be on the table.

I'd have to say "any or all of the above". The bigger question for me is whether the NPC is an interesting character who will add to the campaign - one that, even if no one said "DNPC", would be someone the players want to interact with.

Starting with the very basics, then adding as issues arise is an effective way of learning a game. It means some page-flipping during the game, and it should be expected that those early sessions may be slow for that reason, but learning the rules while applying them is typically far more effective than just reading the, with no context.

Emphasis added. The average on a 12d6 normal attack is 42 STUN, 14 BOD. Why should anyone ever take a normal attack if they can do more BOD and the same STUN against more limited defenses for the same cost? This is the baseline at which the system fails, in my opinion. That massive BOD increase also means we can forget Barriers, Force Walls, Entangles and Automatons. Either they are no challenge at all to anyone with a KA, or those without a KA are helpless and frustrated. I think the HA and the HKA should both go. HA is "extra STR with a limitation". That has been made a lot more viable in 6e, where this does not require sacrificing figured characteristics. The option, which was bandied about at the time, was to fix the price of figured characteristics, then boost the price of STR, CON, DEX and maybe one or two others to reflect the value of figureds they provided, and set a fair "no figured" limitation for each of those. But, if the pricing was fixed, why did we need Figured at all? Set "only direct damage" at -1/2 and we have 10 points for +3d6. That is still 15 AP, and still 3 damage classes. It's the same price as a no range Blast. That seems reasonable. For -1/4, it can enhance other damage effects - oh, look, that's the price of a Martial DC. How often do you see a Martial Artist use a non-martial maneuver? Now, we have Killing Attack. Like every other attack power, it is Ranged by default. It costs 15 points for 3 DCs. As Duke says, I (and my buddy, elementary mathematics) do not support "add something to something else, +1/2". You have 30 points in Attack 1, and one stat of 30. You want 60 AP of Attack 1. Should you buy up Attack 1, spending 30 more points, or just add +1/2 "my stat I already paid for boosts it" and only pay 15 points? But perhaps your character concept is not stat-heavy, so you have no stats over 15. Or you want to build a concept, not design a concept that has a more efficient build, so the appropriate stat(s) aren't that high. Guess you have to pay the full 30 points. You should have picked a concept the system favours. Or you can just pick a stat to bump up from 15 to 30 for free. Maybe INT should make your PrecisionBeam more damaging, so instead of spending 60 points on your 12d6 PrecisionBeam, you spend 30, +1/2 to add INT, and another 15 raising your INT to 30 from 15. That's +3 to all PER and INT rolls for free. What it really is, is a way to make characteristics a better investment than other abilities because they will provide something for nothing. Building to the concept and mechanics that get you the most freebies is not, in my view, consistent with the Hero System philosophy. Reasoning from effect and paying for the result is the Hero System philosophy. Your PrecisionBeam should do more damage due to your high INT? Buy more PrecisionBeam damage due to your high INT. Your Claws should cut deeper due to your high STR? Buy more KA, No Range, due to your high STR. Make them Unified Powers since an INT/STR drain will also drain your KA. It does, however, make the build behind muscle-powered weapons way more complex. So what? That can fall behind the scenes in a Heroic game, where equipment is not purchased with points.

First, good luck. Second, that is about what I would expect to see in the chart. We reopen and things go smooth. Because the virus is asymptomatic for 10-14 days. By then, many have decided we're reopened, life is back to normal, forget masks and social distancing. My understanding is that the history of pandemics always sees a second wave worse than the first. Sadly, history tends to repeat itself if we fail to learn from it...and we are, as a species, very slow learners. Alberta moved to Phase 1 reopening last week, so I am concerned our graph is about 3 weeks behind yours. Although we have managed to avoid the brunt of the virus to date.

My thought is that he needs to put Trigger on a lot more than Movement to have a Triggered attack. Otherwise, the best he can do is the same as "aiming Knockback" with base OCV against the target's full DCV and, on a hit, both targets take full impact damage (6e v2 p114). If he also paid for Trigger on his STR and any other inclusions in the attack, a normal Move By or Move Through would be possible, but not just from triggered movement. 4th Ed, I think the rule was zero OCV, not base OCV, for an untargeted attack. That makes a normal attack without paying the freight for Trigger on the attack powers an even bigger giveaway.

1e and 2e were the same, I think. I never really looked at 3e, but 1e and 2e were "cost = STR; you get these 5 maneuvers; pay half STR again and add a x1/2 multiplier to damage for each maneuver.

The reality is that a lot of our characters are effectively "pre-fab". The more points the characters have, the more that becomes the case. 2 SPD? Not likely. Warrior with 8 STR and 9 CON? Probably not. Just the "basics to play" purchases chews up a lot of points. Toss in the campaign expectations for various character types (say, for example, that Wizards have specific knowledge skills, a school, etc.) and more points are pre-spent for all characters of that type. We can get to the extreme where all Rogues look the same (and that's merging closer with recent d20 models where there are more "pick a power" options at various points in character generation and leveling up), but the reality is that Hero characters can be problematic on the other side - too many choices leading to analysis paralysis. Starting with a pregen that is the basic type of character you want to play, maybe tweaked a bit for a specific ability you want the character to have, is a good intro to Hero, at a minimum. As well, when the mechanics are taken care of quickly and easily, we can get less focus on "stats and powers" and more on "personality and character". That's never a bad thing. And KS, you don't do your work justice with "kind of was an innovator in that space, so to speak". IMO, you are one of the best users of the Hero system to build desired tone, effect and style. That is, the use of the game system to build a real game.

There are still some who can feel empathy for others even without a personal stake. We need more of those people. We especially need them in positions of power. Unquestionably,, no response to the pandemic will save every business from failure, every household from bankruptcy or every individual from disease, permanent aftereffects or death. Aiming for that "zero" as we minimize the casualties, however - we can do that. And we should.

Buried in the middle of the pregens is pregen abilities - you can take the Elf template, the Burglar template and the Street Urchin template, for example, and you can buy these pregen combat tricks, skill tricks, spells, what have you. All are useful in setting the standards for the game, and the characters. To my mind, there would also be nothing wrong with taking the pregen and saying "This one is pretty close, but I want him to have those skill levels with a bow instead of the sword, and trade off 4 less STR for 2 more DEX. Is that OK?" Which is a lot less work for the GM than "here is my designed from scratch character that is completely off base with virtually all of your campaign standards and doesn't fit the world anyway because you may not have pixie-housefly crossbreeds".

Am I missing some MA rules back in history? In 1e,IIRC, that equally amazing Martial Artist would have spent 10 points (cost = STR) to have the same 5 martial maneuvers as everybody else who purchased martial arts, and would add 2d6 to his attack as long as he kicked instead of punching (or at least Martial Kicked instead of Martial Punching). If he developed an 80 STR during the night AND spent another 70 points to retain his Martial Arts, he could now double his 16d6 to 32d6 with a Martial Kick. Which, due to the doubling rule which has also been with us since 1e, that training which previously allowed him to deliver an amazing FOUR TIMES the force with that Martial Kick would now permit him to deliver an astonishing 65,536 TIMES the force with his Martial Kick. That's some spin! But the 4e - 6e Martial Artist could spend 56 point on Martial Damage Classes instead of 70 maintaining his Martial Arts and get the same result. So I am not sure that comparison demonstrates any superiority for either approach.

Sadly, for many, I think it is "a single close friend or family member". A single death is a tragedy. A thousand deaths is a statistic. The Premier (think Governor in the US) of Ontario, Doug Ford, has been scathing in his comments on those not observing social distancing and other protocols. His mother contracted COVID-19 early on. Our Prime Minister has appeared outside his house for a press conference most days of the pandemic, with the steady message that this is serious, and we need to work to contain the spread. His wife was one of the first locked down after testing positively following her return from an international trip. Intellectually, we know these numbers are scary. But, at least for many, it hits home with much greater power - emotionally - when it becomes personal.

This comes down to game expectations as well - if I envision a game of great, near-mythical heroes (players will be in the Robin Hood and Hercules style) and you envision a "zero to hero" style game, then either I buy into the vision of the game, build my "Level 1 Robin Hood" and rely on building him up over the course of the campaign, I shelve the concept for a more appropriate game, or I look for a game which is designed around legendary characters at the outset. It does not change the need to meet expectations, but does highlight the need to manage the expectations consistent with the campaign world. If I want a character whose strength is Legendary, and every village blacksmith ends up 3-5 STR higher than my character, that is a problem with the character build. If I want a character whose strength is Legendary and the game is not intended for Legendary characters, that is a problem with the character expectations.

Why are most of you listing special effects rather than mechanics? This is Hero - the fact that you are playing Stairway to Heaven with a full band rather than Chopsticks on a cheap keyboard is just special effects. What does it do in gameplay? Thanks to IndianaJoe3 for providing the mechanics.