Hugh Neilson

This also means, to me, that the GM takes on the responsibility of ensuring that each character's points spent will have meaning in the game, that each character will be able to meaningfully contribute in-game and that each character will have their moments to shine. It can be a very good result, or a very poor one. It's one step further down the road of pre-fab abilities to choose from (the player does not construct those either, whether in pre-constructed Hero or in a d20 game). I would say, like most things Hero, there is a balance. If I want, for example, the Finest Archer in All the Land, and you tell me an OCV of 6 and 4 skill levels with the bow does the trick, then I expect that this will mean I rarely, if ever, miss and never meet a better archer. If I rarely hit with the bow, and am constantly outclassed by other archers, you did not deliver. But if that was my character vision, I should have asked you first anyway, not showed up with an OCV 4 (or 8 ) character with 2 (or 12) skill levels with archery. Especially with players who are either new to Hero or new to the balance and parameters of your setting, this will be as, or more, effective compared to "player builds and GM tweaks/suggests tweaks". However, I would also be open to player input, especially Hero-familiar players, and to input after a session or two, should the character not perform to expectations, just as I expect players to be open to toning down abilities which turn out to be problematic in unexpected ways.

3/6/5 Superleap So, the question is, if I were to take 12 points of Body in Absorption, how far should I be able to bounce? I want to say that Nedoking is an excellent GM. Instead of telling me "no" outright, he said he'd take the time to think about it and he did. When he was still uncertain after a week, he posted here. I'm going to go with whatever he decides, but I think that this discussion might benefit from presenting the real world build the question applies to. First, I can never recall any question that Adjustment Powers worked against AP (affected by advantages and not limitations) so I am not sold that 4e is that unclear, but I am also not going to dig up the books. Second, how is being Linked to Absorption in any way limiting? Absorption does not shut off. It is always there, waiting to Absorb some carelessly tossed energy. Perhaps "only in segments where he has Absorbed points", and I would consider -1/2 for that, is the intent. I'd consider a limitation that he has to use it, and the RSR applies only to determine whether he controls the bounce, or he sails off in some random direction. Third, I think I would make that limitation "points fade after one use", not one segment. If he bounces and strikes a second object, that would be another Absorb. I would be more inclined to limit the Absorbption to require uncontrollably impacting a solid object than to put Trigger on the Superleap. Finally, I have to wonder whether Superleap, limited to (or Triggered by) "only after striking a solid object that takes no Knockback" and perhaps "maximum 1"/1 BOD on impact" would be a more straightforward construct. It seems like the idea is that he bounces off, and he may be able to control which way he goes. Couldn't he deliberately run into a wall?

Suggesting you can get by with lower dice as an energy attack because ED is often lower than PD suggests that you should also be able to get by with lower ED than PD because energy attacks are commonly lower damage than physical attacks. Both convey a campaign expectation more than a hard and fast rule of Hero. I'd consider using the example character more, perhaps to indicate that his 8 OCV and DCV are pretty average for a Super in this game - you likely would not want to be lower than 6, and you'd need pretty solid reasons to be higher than a 10 or 11. His Speed is a bit above average - a 5 is pretty typical, a 4 is about as slow as Supers go, and a 7+ is pretty spectacular, and not very common. I'd also consider discussing the limitations a bit more, such as Limitations save points and give you some control over the game. The greater the limitation, the more frequently it crops up and/or the more debilitating it is when it does arise. Stormy's -1/2 limitation is pretty debilitating - basically, he loses all of his powers when it comes up. It shouldn't come up every game, or every other game, but expect it to arise maybe every 4 or 5 games. When it does, it is a big deal. Similar logic applies to Disadvantages - for example, Stormy should expect to see issues arising from his womanizing pretty often, with a variety of minor drawbacks resulting, due to the large number of disadvantages he has in this regard. Minor, but I am not sure how 3 point levels that would normally be "with blast" get extended out to Flight, with extra DCV when flying, at no extra cost.

Flying Dodge can be viewed in a variety of ways. Like Dodge itself, it's bonus DCV if you use a half phase and don't attack. You get your full move instead of you half move, though. Is it variant Martial Dodge? You can do a Move By for free, with -2 OCV and -2 DCV, with reduced STR but a velocity bonus. We have the Grab By, which changes the base from Strike to Dodge. So a Dodge By could logically be - OCV (as you don't attack) and +1 DCV. By that logic, Flying Dodge adds +3 to the Dodge By, should cost more than Martial Dodge, since it adds +3 instead of +2. Defensive Strike costs 5 points, and adds +1 OCV as well as +3 DCV to a standard Strike. Flying Dodge adds +3 DCV to what could easily be a standard maneuver like Grab By. Once we view Move By as an "adder" to other maneuvers, perhaps some of the other fMove maneuvers come into a bit more clarity. I don't have HSMA in front of me, so I can't speak to the other two, but they feel like a combination of Block and a second maneuver. Once someone has Grabbed an opponent, why can't he use the opponent like a shield, to block an incoming attack? Maybe if we had more robust rules for that, we get the Grappling Block to work. The lack of an ability to Trip someone grated on me, which was the reason for my suggestion in the SETAC days. But what stopped you from using "grab and throw" as a Shove? I don't like it as much, but -1 OCV and -2 DCV, I Grab and immediately Throw the opponent into the spiky museum piece (instead of across the room or to the ground), or back into the bench where he crashes over. Of course, I could just do a Move Through (or a Strike) for damage and if he's knocked back he falls over the bench.

I recall in the SETAC days suggesting that Martial maneuvers should be variations from standard maneuvers, but should not do things standard maneuvers can't. I believe 6e was the one that added a Shove and a Trip maneuver. It also has the optional Choke maneuver. To me, full move maneuvers are "martial moveby/move through" Is anything still missing, GB?

Canada is now grappling with those relief funds creating a disincentive for some to return to work. There is a balance to be struck. How long would we last if no one from the meat packing plant through to the grocery stores showed up for work?

I'm always amazed how quickly these discussions become "well, you can own lots of things with multiple purposes that are not designed for the sole purpose of inflicting injury or death, so guns should be a free-for-all". There is a ratio of risk to benefit which should also be considered,

That suggests those jealous of the billionaires may be the evil ones, doesn't it? Also, let's not forget that, by Third World standards, those of us with computers and online access are pretty wealthy. Wealth is a very relative thing.

It also depends whether you want defeat to mean death or KO. One of the strengths I saw in Hero early on was a defeated Conan waking up hours later. That does not happen in D&D. If the character is basically immune to long-term damage, a short-term KO is the only way they will be taken down.

This is what I find scariest about the "well, rural areas can reopen" theory. One case in a town of 3,200 can be spread to a significant portion of the population before the problem is identified. Then we have a hundred or more cases, and local heath care is overwhelmed. Serious cases need to be transported a significant distance for treatment. In Canada, the northern Territories are doing pretty well, but mainly because they closed down all travel with heavy, mandatory quarantine for those who absolutely HAD to travel, very early on.

The "double cost" NCM rule does not actually prevent that, though. 35 STR will cost 40 points - expensive, sure, but look at your damage with a big weapon. Recalling 5e and prior games, with another 110 CP, you could still build a very viable character. He's got a nice PD, STUN and REC out of the gates too. I sometimes toyed with a 30 DEX. 90 of 150 points, but with an OCV and DCV of 10 and a 4 SPD, that's a pretty nice start to, say, an archer or an agile rogue. I don't think the solution to "inappropriate" character concepts, or unbalanced characters, has ever been "OK, but you have to pay extra".

I never found the issue as pronounced in Heroic games, but I've never done a deep dive into why. A few possible reasons. Lower defense to DC ratios (the stun multiple is more pronounced when high multiples bypass relatively high defenses; I did some math years ago and I think the breakpoint is about the 2 DEF per DC area, so 12 DC and 24 defenses. Far more KAs - the issue exists, but it is the same for most attackers, so there is no actual comparison to normal attacks. That could also be a genre expectation that the KA will be more effective. Hit locations also apply to normal damage, so having multiples there smooths out some of the rougher edges a bit (not as convinced as I do not recall a lot of HTH fighters or staff wielders).

I wonder about the re-opening trend lines. Given how long COVID-19 is asymptomatic (2 weeks is the last I recall), we should not detect a rise until we've been mingling more for those two weeks. That seemed pretty on-pace with the German chart someone posted yesterday. That also means the line would logically keep trending upwards for 2 weeks after any measures are re-imposed.

Well, it's only a 1d3 multiple in 6e, instead of a d6-1...

I feel it is very unlikely that the virus simply spreads through the atmosphere, and no actions taken by anyone have any impact. Lety's take a look at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ All figures are per 1 million population US: 4,188 cases, 247 deaths, 29,063 tests Spain 5,765 cases, 576 deaths, 52,781 tests. Way more tests; somewhat more cases UK 3,286 cases, 472 deaths, 28,309 tests - marginally less tests, considerably fewer cases Germany 2,060 cases (less than half US), 91 deaths, 32,891 tests - slightly more testing, far less cases - and way more efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Should that tell us anything? Canada 1,854 cases, 132 deaths, 30,099 tests - marginally more testing, far less cases - and greater efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Should that tell us something? I didn't pick countries you feel are more likely to cover up the spread of COVID than the US is, did I? Countries testing on a comparable leve who have taken more efforts to reduce the spread of the virus are seeing less cases and less deaths. And that includes the disastrous issues in Canadian long-term care facilities. The only plausible conclusion, I assume, is that the US is the sole nation on earth reporting their results honestly. Or is there a remote possibility that there is some other explanation?

That 6d6 KA is unlikely to be allowed in a game where attacks cap out at 12d6 normal damage. As I read your suggestion, specifically it was to allow the higher-dice KA which did more BOD and less STUN. If the intent is that the KA in that 12 DC game would also be capped at 12d6, and average 12 STUN and 12 BOD, we have an attack that probably serves no useful purpose at all, at least in any game where opponents will typically have defenses at or above 1 per typical DC. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The reduced stun multiple effectively made a 6e KA a bit better at inflicting BOD, but far worse at inflicting STUN, making it of limited, if any, use in a typical four-colour campaign. An attack whose chief or sole purpose is to kill probably should not work well in a game where lethality is intended to be low to nonexistent.

Vancouver is five smaller cities which grew into one another - having multiple streets with the same name, for example, makes it challenging to navigate.

Well, I was going to comment on all the statistics for deaths per annum being compared to Cornavirus stats to date, but Old Man beat me to it. How about getting the stats for other causes of death on a weekly basis, and comparing it to last weeks' deaths from Coronavirus as a more reasonable litmust test. Of course, that's not the only impact. What's the economic impact of, say, 5% of the population being "active cases" out of the workforce for several weeks, even if they can tough it out at home with no medical coverage? The other challenge is that low-population density regions are the "safest" to reopen, based on stats. But that holds true on average, not when a small urban centre starts with one case that explodes into the population - how many people in an urban center of 10,000, or 25,000, can be treated with local resources?

The 6e theory behind a reduced Stun Multiple was that the purpose of a KA is, or should be, to inflict BOD damage, not get a massive STUN roll. Issues I see with your model: - with a limitations model, frameworks don't work well, and AP limits or DC limits fail to permit a larger number of dice. - if we ignore that, the KA "1 stun per die" at 60 AP is 18d6, averaging 18 BOD. It still does nothing, or next to nothing, against most Supers, but it now shreds Entangles, Force Walls/Barriers and Automatons unless we beef them up to be virtually immune to everything but killing attacks. These issues tend to arise in a lot of suggested "fixes" to KAs.

It seems like we already have PRE attack bonuses for violent actions, etc. If you hit a thug for a 10d6 Normal attack that gets 6 BOD after his normal 4 PD, is that so much less violent than your 10d6 KA that gets 10 BOD past his nonexistent rDEF? What if we made killing a +1/4 advantage, so you get 8d6 versus a 10d6 normal attack? Just pulling that out of the air... So let's run the math. Normal gets hit with a 10d6 Normal attack, and takes an average of 8 BOD and 33 STUN after defenses. If it's a KA, they take 8 BOD and 14 stun. Add on a standard 3d6+1 KA, which would have done 11.5 BOD and 23 STUN. But Normals are not standard opponents. This will make Lois Lane and Doiby Dickles a bit less likely to require changing a DNPC to a Psych complication, which seems more four-colour anyway. Another Super gets hit with a 10d6 Normal attack, and takes an average of 0 BOD and 14 STUN after defenses. If it's a KA, they take 3 BOD and 11.5 stun. I am thinking KAs will still be pretty deadly to average Supers, but won't be quite as good at KO. 3d6+1 KA means 6.5 BOD and 2 STUN - much more likely to be fatal and much less likely to KO. A high rDEF super, with 10 rDEF, takes 0 BOD or 14 STUN from a Normal attack, but 0 BOD and 9 STUN from the KA. Here the KA seems outmatched. 3d6+1 normal KA gets 1.5 BOD and 2 STUN, so it's more likely to injure, but still pretty outmatched. Not sold, but we are getting closer, at least. A normal is hospitalized either way - does this really create any difference, or is the person slamming 8 BOD to a Normal attempting murder either way? A "standard Super" is bloodied, and probably does not want to stand-up duel the KA attacker. The team will likely develop tactics to put that bulletproof teammate up against the KA enemy. Comparing to the standard rules, your low level of rDEF would make a standard KA very bloody. That's really why the game evolved to people having some rDEF. Maybe the above gets what you're looking for a bit closer.

Why? I can buy an HKA that does No Knockback, and I can similarly limit my STR. If I have a 30 STR, I can buy a 2d6 HKA for 30 points and get a 4d6 HKA. If I have the same 30 STR and I buy a 2d6 ED Drain, STR Adds , why shouldn't I get the same impact of a 4d6 ED Drain for the same cost of 30 points? As the rules have evolved, most "auto-adders", like Growth Momentum and Stretching Momentum have been removed, and many advantages have been expanded to other powers, just as Duke suggests. Further, Combat Maneuvers have become usable with things other than basis STR, as have Martial Arts. This has left the structure of KA's more and more an outlier. So here's an approach. Ditch HKA and RKA entirely. Just have Killing Attack, 5 points per DC, and Ranged by default. Now, modify the Hand Attack model so that you can build it with Blast, KA, Flash, Drain, whatever. OR (my preference) get rid of Hand Attack. Price a limitation on STR for direct damage only (-1/2) and for combat erffects only (1/4, which is the same 4 points as a Martrial Arts DC). You want a 4d6 KA? You buy a 4d6 KA - it does 4d6 KA at range. Those are claws - I want them to have No Range. OK, make the No Range - you get a -1/2 limitation and they do a 4d6 KA at no range. But I'm really strong, so they should do more damage. Why? Well, logically, they should. Sure. Logically, growth and stretching momentum should too. And immunity to heat and cold should mean better defenses against heat and cold attacks. That means you have the SFX that justify investment of extra points into those extra abilities, not that you get extra abilities for free. Feel free to limit 2d6 of your HKA to require you use 30 STR with no other effects in order to get the KA damage. That seems like it would be a limitation to me. Maybe -1/4, consistent with Lockout and Unified Power. Right now, the guy with 60 STR and no KA gets no benefit from STR adding to KAs. The fellow with 10 STR and a 3d6+1 KA gets 4d6, and so does the one with 30 STR and a 2d6 KA. The 30 STR guy gets +20 STR for free. Balance is often hard to assess, but it's pretty easy to see that something for nothing is not balanced.

So let's run the math. Normal gets hit with a 10d6 Normal attack, and takes an average of 8 BOD and 33 STUN after defenses. If it's a KA, they take 10 BOD and 17.5 stun. Another Super gets hit with a 10d6 Normal attack, and takes an average of 0 BOD and 14 STUN after defenses. If it's a KA, they take 5 BOD and 15 stun. I am thinking KAs wil be pretty deadly to average Supers, and they are clearly superior at that defense level. A high rDEF super, with 10 rDEF, takes 0 BOD or 14 STUN from a Normal attack, but 0 BOD and 12.5 STUN from the KA. So the KA choice means I kill off most opponents, and do more STUN, at a slight cost if my target has exception rDEF. I suggest the math fails.

I've always hated that "+1/2 to add STR damage" suggestion. Why can't I pay +1/2 on a Drain or a Flash to add STR? It's a no range eye poke. Or pay +1/2 on my KA and add my Blast to it? Why is it only the HTH damage of STR that can have a special mechanic to enhance another type of attack, and only that one other type of attack? If I told you that combining my 1d6 Flash with my 10d6 Light Blast made the light brighter, you would not suggest an Advantage for my Flash - you would suggest I buy more dice of Flash.

I'm a long way from the province of Quebec, which has called for the schools to reopen. This has raised concerns with many parents. Recently, at least a few schoolboards went on record that they will not reopen the schools under their management, regardless of the orders of the provincial government, as they do not believe they can safeguard the students or the staff. We need more people who are prepared to stand up for what's right, even when it's not expedient.

Not a FREE spellcheck - that would be socialism "Down with socialism and where's my medicare and social security checks?"