Hugh Neilson

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome

Re: Sleep spell - one GM's take I've always pictured Sleep as more of an Ego attack effect myself. hmmm...what about 1 command Mind Control to "go to sleep"? Transform from "awake" to "asleep"? I'm sure someone out there will have a better take. I play D & D and Hero, so I generally avoid trying to duplicate D & D in Hero. I'd rather do something I couldn't do in D&D, or do it some way D&D doesn't facilitate.

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome Apparantly I have pricked your delicate ego. That wasn't my intent, but life goes on. Let me show you the difference between what I consider a "comment" versus what I would consider "insulting". A comment would be: "I find the fact that you are prepared to allow Lightning Reflexes with a technology focus inconsistent. To me, that's just a lesser form of heightened reflexes/enhanced reaction time offered by DEX and SPD." That, I would consider a valid post to this thread. It could be phrased harsher ("Come on, Lightning Reflexes is just another enhancement to reaction time."), but its a criticism of your argument. An insult might add: "Why don't you pull your head out of your @$$, you moron." That, I do not consider a valid post to this thread (outside of its capacity to illustrate a "comment" vs an "insult"). That's just getting personal. Really, your own comment "ou'll excuse me for thinking that disagreeing with a rule is a totally different thing from attacking the creator of that rule because you disagree with that rule." seems aimed atthe same point. And for what it's worth, your post doesn't offend me, although I do belioeve we will have to agree to disagree as to whose attitude is arrogant and condescending. The bottom line is that I perceive this particular restriction as arbitrary. "There's no technology to do that at present" is simply a rationalization for the arbitrary restriction. Now maybe there's something in the long-term campaign plan that prohibits such technology existing, and that's fine - often an "arbitrary" restriction (eg. "no aliens") exists due to long-term campaign plans. Obviously, you wouldn't want to post something in that area where it becomes public knowledge to the players in your campaign. As a further clarification (apologies if this has already been answered), what if the character in question comes from a far distant future (or far distant star system) where such technology has, in fact, been developed and is in use. Is the campaign structure intended to say "it cannot work" or "we can't currently make it work"? And feel free to be as offended as you like. I don't mean to offend, but who am I to tell you how to interpret my comments?

Re: How many points?

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome First off, I want to publicly thank Agent X for his defense. Nice to know there are some Heros out there defening the innocent while they sleep. Second, when you post a thread titled "my house rules, comments welcome", I would think you might expect to receive some comments. I get the sense that you wanted everyopne to read these and post variants of "That's the greatest, most cohesive set of house rules I have ever seen! Please let me pay you large sums of money for the privilege of adopting them myself. You are the God Of All Things Hero." If you can't stand to have your concepts critizized, or even questioned, perhaps you should not post them, asking for comments, in a public forum. Halfway through the comments posted since I last logged on, I considered posting a "sorry if you took this the wrong way" comment. Instead, however, it may be more appropriate to say that perhaps it is you who "needs to turn the attitude volume down a couple of notches." I have not, at any point, suggested there is something intrinsically "wrong" with your game world, much less that it "sucks", whether in general or due to the specific restrictions you have set. I asked some questions on your restrictions. I had thought that was a "comment" which, according to the thread title, was "welcome". Apparantly, I was wrong. Although I'll admit to a certain temptation to provide some comments that would clarify the difference between "questions and comments" and "criticism", I suspect my usual bluntness and sarcasm would not add anything positive to this thread, so we'll just leave it at that.

Re: How many points? Zero. I'm not arguing that this should be a disadvantage. See, here's where we differ. "I will save up my xp and spend them all in one big chunk" is just as legal as spending the points as they come along. "Radiation accident" is just a catch phrase for spending a large amount of xp all at once and effecting a fairly marked change on your character. There should not be any point cost for a character who will spend xp only when he has, say, 100 accumulated xp to spend, any more than there should be a cost to being able to spend it as it is accumulated, 3 or 5 points at a time. It's simply a player choice - you have the xp, you decide what to do with it. Now, if the player wants to rewrite the character (ie not just spend xp, but also change the pre-spent character points), that's another matter entirely. Is the rewrite just to reflect an enhanced character with the same concept (eg. moving a power iunto a new power framework)? I don't see that as a "rewrite". But what if the character wants to completely rewrite his character - eg. SkillsMan will be in a true radiation accident and emerge an Energy Projector. As a GM, I'd allow it under the same parameters as I'd allow the player to bring in a new character. Generally, I allow a "new character" some xp to make them comparable to existing characters for campaign parity, so no big deal. If I required new characters to start with no xp, then a "full rewrite" radiation accident should also have a point cost. However, I don't think that cost can be set in advance - in the extreme case, it may well be "character loses all his xp" (but maybe can take on more disadvantages reflective of the change). Maybe the "cost" should simply be a Multiform with very restrictive "changeback" provisions. SkillsMan is still out there, his old form, but good luck changing back!

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? I think this is one reason Damage Shield was simply a separate advantage in prior editions. 5e seems to have taken a few constructs and opted for using other mechanics rather than simply "its own power". Regeneration, Instant Change, Damage Shield...funny, all are unpopular with long-term Hero gamers. I think the old +1/2 worked by combining the inability to attack directly (outside a Grab), aspects of continuous, and absence of range. However, this made DS on attacxks already lacking Range an obvious choice, because you didn't lose Range for free. I'm inclined to say Damage Shield as a fully independent advantage which is +1/2, or +1 if the power it applies to has No Range. Alternatively, it could be mandatory that the power first have Range, whether inherently or by paying for the advantage (still effectivve +1 for a power which has no range). I'm a big fan of Steve's Trigger article in Digital Hero #11, which posited an expansion to the Trigger rules, which, rumor has, will be incorporated into 5eR. That article provided for a new construct for a Damage Shield which would have a total of +1 1/2 advantages, but which would permit No Range if the attack otherwise would have had range. Let's compare the models using two examples: (a) 8d6 EB Damage Shield: 4e: 60 points 5e: 100 points Trigger: 100 Active Points; 67 Real Points DS Advantage: 60 points (my kludge above; 40 x 1.5) ( 4d6 Stun Drain: 4e: 60 points 5e: 100 points Trigger: 100 Points DS Advantage: 80 points (my kludge above; 40 x 2) The Trigger approach gets a reasonable result for the EB, in my opinion. It's tougher to squeeze into a framework, especially a Multipower, than a straight +1/2 or +1 advantage would be. The Drain doesn't work out quite so well, but that should be more expensive. It's only a question of how much more expensive. I think I could live with the Trigger aproach here, though I think 80 is the more reasonable cost. However, what about energy projectors with Variable Advantage? They can't flush that -1/2 limit through, and Variable Advantage to create a DS seems reasonable. That leads me to favour a straight advantage for Damage Shield, rather than the Trigger approach. However the Trigger approach appeals to me as a systems purist. I suspect the Trigger approach will end up in 5eR, given the comments that this enhancement to Trigger will be in 5e. Maybe Steve has some comments (maybe Steve will delete my post to avoid giving away to much of his DH article for free ) Steve, if I'm giving away too much free info here, go ahead and edit or delete - your ideas, your decisions.

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate

Re: Speed in FH

Re: Speed in FH

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome Okay. So could a character whose backstory brings him from the future, or some far distant world with more advanced technlolgy have this ability? Sorry, but it seems arbitrary to select this one ability and define it as "beyond the scope of current technology" unless you're also going to deny other abilities, of more tenuous "technological" merit. For example, what about: - A Faster Than Light Drive? - A time machine? - Boot jets with no momentum or inertia problems (just land and you're fine; position shift). - a gun that fires visible laser beams - a device that transforms lead into gold I just find it odd that, in all that comic book pseudoscience and magic, this one item is so inconsistent with the campaign that it can't be allowed.

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? "If you consider DS as being more akin to a Continuous Uncontrolled attack than as an Instant one then the cost doesn't seem so out of line. It is expensive (And again, I'm open to honest discussion of whether it's overpriced in FREd), but as a Power that is quite uncommon in the comics it probably should not be particularly cheap. But if you consider it an active defense rather than a fight-winning Power it seems more reasonable." I'm assuming that Continuous is +1/2, since that's implied in some other posts (why do I think it's really +1? I'll use both to be safe) What if we do look at it as a continuous uncontrolled attack? That would be a total of +1 1/2, the exact same advantage applied to Damage Aura. It would still be usable at range. Once it hits, it would keep on hitting, every phase, without fail, until the END placed in it runs out. It would keep working even if the person who fired the power is knocked out. A Constant (but not Uncontrolled) power would seem comparable. A Continuous EB would cost +1/2 (+1?). It would have range, and once it hits, it would remain "up" and keep damaging the target on each of the attacker's phases, so long as he spends END. Contrast with Damage Shield, at +1 1/2. No range. I have to spend END whether I hit anyone or not, or even get a chance to hit anyone. It does not keep damaging them unless they keep hitting me. I don't control who, or when, it attacks. The only advantage is that, if someone hits me, they are automatically hit by the damage shield. Instead of a Damage Shield, I should just buy a 1 hex (+1/2) Continuous (+1/2) EB with Personal Immunity. I can put No Range on it, and further limit it for the fact it has to be in my hex (not an adjacent one, which would normally be the case for HTH), and only affects people who hit me, or who I grab. That should be at least -1 in limitations, probably -1 1/2. Now my 8d6 "Damage Shield" costs 40 x 2/2.5 = 32 points. Assume Continuous is +1, and only allow -1 for all the limitations, and it's 40 x 2.5/2 = 50 points. So somewhere between 32 and 50 points. The 8d6 damage shield purchased under the current rules costs 40 x 2.5 = 100. Should it be possible to duplicate the effect for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost by building it another way? I could buy an 8d6 1 hex area continuous attack for 100 points (if continuous is +1 - wish I had my book). Why should I lose all control over the power for no point break? PS: Sorry for the confusion Tesuji - "Treb" was short for Trebuchet as someone pointed out.

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? Trying to recall your character sheet you posted a while back, I'm thinking virtually any attack, even very minor, is enough to inflict significant STUN to that character. However, I also view that character as an extreme - very high Speed and DEX compensated for by very low defenses. A 43 DEX (IIRC) would not be allowed in a lot of campaigns. I would expect a very small attack to deal that specific character some fairly decent damage. Even then that had to be 18 or 21 points - say 6d6, or 90 points. But the point-comparability needs to be considered. If instead of a 90 point damage shield, the character spent 90 points on DEX and Speed, I suspect that character wuld have CV's and SPD comparable with Zl'fs, and greater defenses and offensive powers. Spend it instead on defenses, and the character gets an extra 30/30 resistant defenses - can Zl'f even hurt that character with such an upgrade? Better yet, buy another 12d6 of normal attack, 0 END - spread for +12 OCV and Zl'f becomes easily hittable with a full power attack. And easier targets get to take extra damage. Or just spread to fill enough hexes that you can hit several members of the team at once. Perhaps a better example - a completely separate offensive power - is a one hex area effect attack. That will hit Z'lf regardless of DCV (absent extraordinary measures to avoid the attack), can srike at range and costs +1/2. A damage shield will hit Zl'f - barring a decision not to attack the shielded target, so an "extraordinary measure". Why should the damage aura be so much more expensive when it is not all that much more effective? I'm not arguing that a damage shield should one punch a typical character, but it should be capable of inflicting enough damage to make a typical character think twice about their choice of targets - not just a very low DEF character. Under the present cost, that can only be accomplished with a disproportionate expenditure of points. Any power that's so expensive that several other alternatives automatically seem preferable is, in my opinion, overpriced. Why should the concept of a "damage shield" be punished by such incredible point-ineffectiveness. No one would suggest raising the price of EB to 10 points per die, because that would make it hugely overpriced compared to other alternatives, and thus an ineffective choice. Overpricing is just as unbalancing as underpricing, in my opinion. Damage shield should carry a cost which is reasonable in respect of its effectiveness. The present cost is excessive. The sole advantage of a damage shield over a 1 hex area is that it does damage without an attack by the shielded character. This is offset by the fact the shielded character has no way to actually make it do damage - if the opponent refuses to hit you, your damage shield is effectively nullified. Sure, you can grab - but the OCV penalty and DCV penalty alone should indicate that any other attack power would be a better choice.

Re: Ye Old "Hero is Hard" Debate Select the one you like: (a) Yes. And I am assuming the d20 player has the requirements for all prestige classes, level bonuses for each class, skills and feats all memorized as well. ( No. And I am assuming the d20 player does not have the requirements for all prestige classes, level bonuses for each class, skills and feats all memorized as well. I will give d20 t6he nod in one respect, though. You can write up your "next level" character in advance and have that sheet ready to go. Since you don't know how much xp your Hero character will get at any one time, it's tough to prepare the updated character sheet in advance.

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

Re: How many points? Any expenditure of xp can be allowed or denied by the GM. Should you also have to pay in advance for the ability to buy up your Speed, purchase new powers in your multipower or EC, or buy a new power later on? "Sorry, if you want a guarantee your character can advance as you envision him, you'll have to take a point penalty up front" doesn't sound like the kind of GM I'd want to game with. That's not to say the GM has to allow radiation accidents, or any form of xp expenditure. However, if the player goes to the GM with a plan for character development, I'd expect the GM to tell the player up front if he doesn't want to allow that, not say "only if you'll spend extra points for the privilege of spending xp". Hey, if the GM doesn't like radiation accidents, just spend your xp as you get it, but don't use the new abilities until you've bought up 50 points or so. When you start using the greater power levels, refer to an off-stage radiation accident.

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? As opposed to remembering the rest of FREd (and the FAQ?), which is simple. I don't think adding another variable or two would kill the system. While we're at it, Charges as an advantage should cap at the same cost as 0 END on the power. I'm not sure this is the right answer for Damage Shield, but it's a thought. I also like the DH Trigger article, which allows damage shields toi take the "No Range" limitation. At present, an adjustment power seems the optimal Damage Shield choice, since it's not going to have any Range anyway.

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? Tesuji hits the nail on the head with his response - the old +1/2 permitted a reasonably effective damage shield. The new costing makes the power pretty ineffectual. I agree with your comments, above. Damage shields are especially useful when dealing with low DEF, high DCV Martial Artists. I can't hit you, but you'll take damage if you hit me. Assume we have a 60 AP type range, so we get 8d6 (old rules) or 4d6 (new rules). Our Human Torch will have, say, 25 PD with his force field and 35 STUN (fairly light, but he had to buy all those cool fire powers). Our Martial Artist does 10d6 damage, has say 10 ED and also has 35 STUN. OLD RULES: Every hit inflicts 10 STUN on Torch and 13 on MA. The damage shield is an effective deterrent - MA will be out after three hits, while Torch would still be conscious, albit with only 5 STUN. NEW RULES: After 4 hits, Torch is down. MA has taken a whopping 16 STUN, and is still good to go. Not much of a deterrent. The above seems to assume in Torch's favour. He gets PD at the top of the range for "normal supers" and the martial artist gets a very low ED. Take Torch down to, say, 20 and give MA a 12 and the results shift to 15/11 per hit under the old rules. Torch is out after 3 hits and MA remains barely concious with 2. Given the variability of damage rolls, there's a considerable risk MA will end up KO's with, or even before, Torch. New rules? Three hist takes Torch out on average. MA takes a whopping 2 STUN per hit, on average. Much more favourable to the Martial Artist. Has anyone priced out the Damage Shield under the DH Trigger article? Would it be any better?

Re: My House Rules. Comments Welcome Well, he didn't have a round shield, so he didn't throw it. That takes out a lot of abilities, and points, right there.

Re: How to apply this Side Effect....? Farkling sums up the Mind Control/Transform differences. I think a lot comes down to how fast you want this to go away when the pobject isn't there any more. Mind Control should dissipate fairly quickly once the object isn't exerting further control (and breakout rolls are getting time bonuses). Absent a limitation on the Transform, such as setting "away from object for 3 days" as the healing condition, the effects will take some time to fade.

Re: How many points?