Hugh Neilson

I agree - the key is whether the character believes in this code, or only lives up to it because he is afraid of what will happen if he doesn't. He could, of course, have a mild Psych Limit (ie in some circumstances he would break the code), and be Watched by zealots (who would want to punish him regardless of the reasons for breaking the code). Lots of good options.

Very powerful blaster with flight, full life support, etc. His blasts should be +1/4 indirect to be able to fire from any point on his body. He should also have a Multiform - if he leaves the suit, he's imperceptible and desolid, can't communicate, etc. He should have an accidental change when he uses some higher level of power (maybe some level of damage classes used in a phase or a turn) which simulates overblasting and dispersing out of the suit, or damage to the suit forcing him to lose cohesion. His defenses would be pretty good - he was pretty much indestructible, unlike the suit. As I recall, he much later developed the ability to maintain a solid form outside the suit.

It also seems a good application of him creating constructs which then act on their own (eg. I recall a scene with a bunch of lions). They'd need to be Loyal, since they're under his full control. I'd likely also give them a Phys Lim of "Can't recover" or "can't recover STUN/BOD" and probably a susceptibility to just being there (ie takes X damage per turn) to eliminate their ability to stay around more or less forever.

Zat Guns are an interesting one. Stargate in HU seems to me like a very high offense, low defense setting. The attacks seem very powerful, the defenses low with the exception of gu'auld force fields. So I see a Zat as: 112 225 point multipower, OAF Zat Gun 11 15d6 NND Does BOD, defense is force fields/walls, lack of normal bioelecric fields (skarra was effected when he was a host, but the gu'auld generally have their fields up), BOD damage counts only if target struck before recovering from first hit (-0) 11 15d6 transform: corpse killed by slot 1 to air The first slot averages 52.5 STUN, enough to stun any normal human, and likely KO him, though possibly only to 0 to -9 on a poor roll and/or high STUN target. Some characters, like jaffa, seem to drop out if hit. Others sometimes struggle and have their eyes open, so 0 to -9. If it hits again before the target recovers, he takes an average of 30 BOD from the two shots in total, again enough to kill most normal humans, but takes no BOD if only hit once. You could add more dice (or more dice that do no STUN) to normally kill a higher BOD target. You could als apply standard effect to both STUn and BOD, or BOD only, to achieve greater consistency. The second shot averages 52.5 Transform - body gone. I'd also handwave the fact that the MP automatically selects the appropriate slot. Expensive? You bet. One shot KO, 2 shot kill, should be expensive.

There seem to be two schools of thought here. One values the consistency and sees this as a fair trade off for loss of effect on average . This is a bit less than a 15% loss (3.5 to 3). The other does not see the value in consistency. I believe it is a fair tradeoff to lose a bit of average effect as the price for consistent, predictable results. Your 3d6 Heal will never roll a 3 just when you need it the most, for example. When most opponents are Stunned, you don't risk hitting him with low damage that has no effect, so he recovers. For the one with defenses in excess of your standard value, how did he get stunned in the first place? Now, assume you believe it is a limitation. How will you price it? At -1/2, players can now select between a 12d6 EB (average damage 42; 6 END; 60 points) or a 15d6 EB, Standard Effect (guaranteed damage 45; 7 END; 60 points). Which one would you choose? The powers are no longer equivalent. You trade off the chance of an above average roll to be guaranteed no below average rolls and, indeed, a greater average damage. Unless you want to go to -1/8, there's no reasonable limitation for standard effect. If it's imposed across the board, character design should logically consider this, and average defenses should be a bit lower to compensate. Personally, I don't like standard effect simply because I don't like removing the random aspect. Players like to roll the dice. And what EB does the same damage every time?

5e caps at +1, IIRC because 0 END costs double for autofire attacks. I, and I suspect many others, cap it at +1/2 for attacks not subject to the doubled advantage.

Exhausting the enemy is a common means opf facilitating taking him down. Boxers certainly engage in this. It's seen in comics fairly commonly ("He's more powerful than me. I';ll have to wear him down."). It certainly can work fine. I haven't played it, but Muta ts and Masterminds uses a system much like you describe elsewhere by applying a "damage save" rather than stun points. Now we are describing a different system for the mechanic, rather than the elimination of the mechanic. It still has bookkeeping - IIRC your saves are penalized for the number of saves made by a fixed margin. Rolling stats and powers can also work. How many significant changes can be made to the base mechanics without changing the game from Hero to something else? Perhaps something else that is of similar quality, or even superior qualify (depending on your point of view), but still something else. There I misread you - my read of the proposal was "get rid of END" or "ignore END in most situations", not "replace it with something else" Your system notes "a number of turns equal to CON". If you include such a mechanic, turns fighting (and, presumably, doing other strenuous tasks over lengthy periods) must be tracked, so we still have bookkeeping. If not, you simply arbitrarily decide when fatigue sets in, which may be less than pleasing to some players and is open for unfairness. You can eliminate any mechanical rule and replace it with some alternative mechanic. That's called "building a new game". You can replace mechnics with arbitrary decisionmaking. We've all played games where they're all eliminated. Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, what have you All gaming does is add an objective mechanic for determining success and failure. Any mechanic you use can work with the right group. It can also be manipulated in the right circumstances. Also, pulling out one mechanic can create a need for others. You've already discussed the need for powers which are exceptionally draining. Now you need to find an appropriate balance for limitations, determine the various gradations of "draining", etc. You also need a construct for characters who cannot be exhausted (some ad-on to life support, maybe?) and a construct for characters who can make others fatigued with a power ("Ray of Fatigue"). Or you deny the existence of such constructs in your game - that option always exists. At the end of the day, we'll all use the system we, and our groups, most enjoy. But, for me, the purpose of playing an existing system, rather than my own homebrew rules, is that someone else did all the playtesting for me, and I can easily refer players to the Book of Rules, which they can purchase should they wish. That's not to say I don't tweak a few rules, but these are not the core mechanics of the game. If I want to change the core mechanics, I'll find a different system to play. I want to play the game, not design it. YMMV By the way, the easy fix to abuse of "10xEND" on my "only used outside combat power" is application of the long term END rules. Within the existing structure, of course.

IMO, and just IMO, fatigue or endurance plays an issue in the comics very rarely. A typical superhero fight never worries about tiring or issues such as running out of webbing and the like (to throw in charges.) Once in a great while, as part of the story, a superhero comic will run a scene where fatigue is an issue. The battle will be unusually long or will be a series of battles and the THEME of the story will be the fatigue or the running out of web juice/bullets. The THREAT or CHALLENGE will be to last thru the challenge and still be victotious. SNIP SNIP SNIP I think a much more reflective of comics and user-friendly approach is the following... 1. under normal scenarios, end is not tracked. 2. for powers specifically listed as tiring or stressful, reflect those powers AS DIFFERENT FROM MOST by applying a side effects or a activation roll limitation. this can also be used for "pushing powers too far". 3. for specifically themed scenarios, which focus on fatigue/loss-of-expendable-resources as a threat, have specific scenario rules to cover those cases. It could be as simple as "you have already fought three battles this afternoon and are tired, apply this side effect (or act roll or burnout roll) to your power... (This does not have to be ad hoc and can be as standardized as you want.) This limits the "must pay attention to fatigue" to the few scenarios where it is important and leaves all that bookkeeping off of all the scenarios where it isn't. This makes it not a hassle when its not important and makes it stand out and highlight even more when it is an issue. Thats the "focus on what matters" part i was trying to get across. [/b] To play Devil's Advocate (and because it will the the 100th reply to this thread), the hero only gets Stunned or Knocked Out when the writer so chooses. Generally, a KO occurs when the challenge will be "What does the hero do to track down his escaped adversary", "how does our hero prevail against a foe who defeated him once" or "how does our hero escape capture/the deathtrap/revelation of his secret ID". This makes a case for ignoring STUN except when one of these themes is in place (I'd add your "endurance session" theme as well - can they tough it out and prevail). Killing a character is an even rarer occurence, and generally done by the writer for a reason, so tracking BOD also seems unimportant except where "death of a hero" is a theme of the story (whether that be the results of his death, his heroism and self-sacrifice, or his creativity in avoiding getting killed). In fiction, both characters and plot are controlled by a single person - the writer. He decides when setbacks occur - there is no need for a system to evaluate whether a setback occurs, or how serious it is. He decides whether the hero succeeds or fails, and to what degree. In games, there is conflict between the characters and the environment. The writer no longer controls the characters. As such, an unbiased mechanism for measuring the impact of setbacks, and ultimate success or failure, is needed. The END mechanism is part of that mechanic in Hero. This isn't to say the game would be eliminated if we ignored END. STUN, BOD and action rolls still exist, and provide a mechanic for determining success and failure. But, in my opinion, the game is diminished when we remove a core rule like END. This removes one mechanic which is determinative of success or failure in the game. I don't see your solution as realy viable, as it requires providing the characters information they would not have. "Uh oh - I have to track END this time. I better be careful how I spend my END." isn't a likely thought balloon from Spider Man as he (unknowingly) starts to run the gauntlet of several of his deadliest enemies.

You can get around that by purchasing the power as 0 END, then taking a minor side effect which drains your END by about the same amount it would otherwise cost each phase.

Let's throw a little more fuel on the fire... First, it's interesting that no one has pointed out the FREd optional suggestion to throw out both END and limitations to create a simpler game. No END costs, but you pay full freight for all powers. Now, I'm in the camp that says END matters. In a Supers game, characters liberally throw around 60 AP attacks, and many have movement and defense powers which cost yet more END. Spending 8 END per phase is pretty common, so a 5 SPD character goes through 40 END a turn. He can either pay points to reduce END costs or raise his own END/REC, or he can tire out. Let's look at some examples: We'll assume only 1 END per phase for movement and defense powers (pretty low in my experience, butnot impossible), SPD 5 and a 90 point atack. Let's also assume 50 END and 10 REC (in the balpark, in my experience. Raising it's pretty easy). I can take an 18d6 EB - very powerful, but I'll spend all my END in one turn, and only have a phase worth after I recover. OUCH! I can take a 14d6 EB at 1/2 END and buy another REC and 2 END with the leftover 3 points. Now I spend 4 END per phase, and I can keep going for a long time - 5 turns before I'm in any danger of running out of END. However, if I'm knocked out, and wake up with, say, 5 STUN after a PS 12 recovery, I need to get through a turn with only 5 END, or find a way to take a recovery in there somewhere. Or I can take a 12d6 EB at zero END. No END problems at all but I'll do less damage than those who were prepared to do the bookkeeping. Or you can look at having 12d6 regardless, and either paying 6, 3 or 0 END. If I pay 6 END, I get 30 more points than the guy who spends 0 END, so I'll be more powerful in other ways. What about lower level campaigns? Maybe you're a 20 STR warrior with a 4 Speed (pretty high END use for a warrior). You'll use 2 END per phase, plus 1 if you move. Say 10 END per turn. Assuming a 15 CON, you have a 7 REC and 30 END. You won't have END problems for 8 turns, absent a KO, so you're pretty safe here. But what about the wizard? Hmmm...I want a FireBolt spell. It's going to be a KA, with -2 in total limitations. I have 15 points available, so I can have 45 AP. Should I make it 2d6, 0 END, or 3d6, full END? Our wizard has only a 3 SPD, and a 15 CON, but "only" a 13 STR. That's 6 REC, 30 END. He also has a mystic shield that costs 1 END per phase, and might move for another END. If he pays full END, he'll use 5 or 6 per phase, say 16 per turn. In Turn 3, we have a problem. Make him a 4 Speed (22 END per turn) and he can't even go 2 turns. And, of course, we have long term END, which provides a further check against wizards using a lot of powerful, high END spells. My examples also ignore pushing, but that's because I consider pushing something used only in truly dire circumstances. If all the characters are built so END is not a problem, so be it. But I find the game more fun when different characters have different strengths and weaknesses. END is one balancer. One energizer bunny - he keeps going forever - and one very powerful, but END burning, guy who hits harder, but runs out of juice, makes for two characters with different strengths and weaknesses, and a more dynamic game. My opinion, anyway.

Nope, nope and nope. All good ideas, though! [PRE attacks from pretty ladies, actually...] An interesting selection. I question whether an externally imposed code is a psych lim. I'm moe inclined to call it a Social limitation or a Watched. After all, the character doesn't get out of the consequences with an ego roll. Another comment on the "berserker, cripple or social outcast". Some might classify a character with 50 points in psych lim's as a basket case.

ANy chance of a nomenclature change? I'd like to see "Age" renamed to something which is not SFX specific. For example, "Frail". There's no reason one should have to be old to have greater restructions to physical characteristics, just as there's no reason every character age 40+ is required to take "Age".

I agree with Derek here. If we lower the entry level to 1" = 10", what's a more useful construct? Teleport 50" (100 points, 10 END) OR Teleport 10", +1/4 Megascale (1" = 10"; 25 points, 2 END; moves twice as far) I can't move in the same fine gradations, but I can use the 75 points I saved to buy 5" of Stretching or 4 PSL's against range penalties, so I can attack all the same hexes at no penalty. That still leaves lots of points left over, and I can move twice as far. In my opinion, Megascale is useful only as a "mass transit" ability. I can get from North America to Europe in the blink of an eye, but I can't cross the street. Water it down to 1" = 10", and you create an ability with much greater combat potential. In this case, less is definitely more.

Really, it's the game showing its roots - in the comics, large characters get stronger, but shrinking characters generally retain full strength. But there's also a balance issue. Shrinking would have to be a lot cheaper if it reduced STR.

Ok, let's look at these. 1. There are three categories for "I don't like these people" - Psych Lim's, Rivalry and Enraged. A code of honour could be personal (Psych) or imposed (Watched, Social Limitation). There's always multiple ways to do more or less the same thing. As noted previously, I'm more inclined to lift this restriction on Psych's if you have 25 points of "Knightly" restrictions and other Psych's unrelated to knightly matters, but with only 75 points to play with, this shouldn't be essential to any character. 2. OK, let's look. Age, Accidental Change, Dependence, Susceptibility and Vulnerability should be rare in the extreme in FH, at least for a Knight (my Bard has a vulnerability, though - any guesses?). We'll avoid Unluck. We'll leave them out. Let's remember that 5 and 10 point disad's exist - you don't need to look for the big kill every time. So what could a Knight have? - dependent NPC's. If you're not a social outcast, you must have friends, family, perhaps a mentor, Lady Love or Squire. This is a pretty easy disadvantage. A hero-worshipping squire that has stats as a Normal and appears on 8- is worth 10 points. - Distinctive Features - Shock of red hair? That smell of rust and sweat that comes of riding in hot armor all day? Scars from training or battles? Even an Easily Concealed feature with no severe reaction is worth 5 points. - Enraged/Berserk: Not for everyone, but what's wrong with a knight who is enraged when his liege, or his order, or his honor is insulted. Select one, and let's say it's on an 8/11 roll. Uncommon circumstances, so that's 10 points. - Hunted/Watched. Neither he nor his associates have any enemies? Nor does he have a commander, a knightly order nor a religious sect that may check up on him? What's up with that? What about Watched by Knightly Order (more powerful, NCI, limited geographic area, Watching, 11-? That's worth 10 points. - Physical Limitations - heavy sleepers, poor vision or hearing doesn't make anyone a basket case, but there's a few points to be had here if someone wants. 5 or 10 points would be pretty easy, but let's leave that one for now. - Reputation - either personal or affiliated with his Order! Perhaps his Order has a Reputation for Dispensing Justice. Peasants stop him on the street to settle minor disputes. "It's mah pig, yer Lordship, and he done et it" Maybe Knights have a reputation for being disdainful of commoners, so they're not apt to provide much in the way of service. Many options exist. Let's use the first (Justice). We'll make the knights well-known, so it's frequent, and it's a world-wide order, so 10 points. - Perhaps he has a Rival for promotions within his Order. There's an easy 5 points, assuming he's basically an equal. - Social Limitation: is he subject to orders from the Knightly Order? Has he sworn an Oath of Fealty to the Crown? Perhaps he has religious affiliations? Any of these could make him Subject to Orders. We'll make it only Occasional, as we aren't in the army, but the missions could be dangerous, so major consequences. That's 10 points. Added to 25 points for Knightly Vows, that's well over 75 points, and we haven't looked at much that's not related to his knighthood, have we? Hey, if he has magical powers, maybe he loses points from a long-term drain if he breaks his Knightly vows. If not, maybe he suffers negative skill levels for a time from his own remorse if he breaches them. There's a Susceptibility too - and it's just more points for those vows, isn't it? Of course, this could be a psych lim, but as you note, there's different ways to do the same thing. As to where they're relevant, how much does a Code of Honour inconvenience you in the wilderness fighting bears? No disadvantage is relevant at all times, and there's not many that can't be made relevant with some player or GM creativity.

Your example is on a knight, so I'm assuming a Fantasy Hero character with, say, 75 points of disad's, 25 of which come from any one source. Look at the other disadvantages this character may have: Social Limitations - is he Subject to Orders from a military or religious organization, or perhaps even the King? Hunted - Watched is quite common, again from superiors. Does his Knightly order have any enemies? Dependent NPC: He has no relatives, no Squire, no Lady Fair, nothing? Those three categpries seem like obvious choices to have some points from. Distinctive Features, Enraged, Reputation, Rivalry are less automatic, but still common for such a character. With only 75 points, taking 50 from Psych Lim's would leave negligible variety. That said, as a GM, I'm pretty open to characters who exceed the max from any one category, provided the added disadvantages aren't just variations on a theme. Make the code of conduct one large disad with greater frequency. [Won't hit a woman, Won't strike an unarmed opponent and Never strikes from Surprise, as separate disadvantages is a lot like taking No Right Hand one finger at a time...] Getting 50 points out of knightly codes? No way. Getting 25 from codes of honour and another 15 - 25 from other, more personal, quirks? Sure. But getting 2/3 of disad's from just one source when there's so much else to choose from? Why?

The default is that shrinking doesn't reduce STR. You could always create a structure where it does. Shrinking and Growth are not used to model creatures always larger/smaller than man-size (although they were in prior editions). Instead, you purchase the abilities as normal (eg. bonus STR, BOD, STUN, Knockback resistance for large creatures; bonus DCV, stealth and concealment for small ones) and take a physical limitation for the drawbacks of unusual size, including reduced DCV (Growth) or KB resistance (shrinking). Small animals also comonly sell back STR, even into the negatives, to reflect their minimal carrying capacity. If you want more on animals, consider picking up the Bestiary.

Re: Even better Considering I rarely, if ever, use a prefab character as written anyway, maybe this shouldn't bug me as much as it does, but Terror Inc., Deathstroke AND the Conquerors? Who's left?

Re: Re: Newbie Questions Assuming that this rule made its way to Sidekick. It's on P 133 of the main Hero System rulebook, which would be under the heading Entering Combat, if that makes it any easier to locate (I don't have Sidekick).

Sorry, Steve - I'm obviously not communicating very well here. Anyway, my hypothetical situation goes a few phases past the other question you answered. To use an example, let's posit two characters, Deadeye who has a low DC attack, and high Find Weakness, and Rockman, whose defenses are extremely high. To damage Rockman, Deadeye needs to quarter his defenses, at least. Let's give Deadeye 8 Speed, and a 3 for Rockman. Rockman doesn't know Deadeye is there. Phase 12: Deadeye Finds Weakness on Rockman and succeeds. He can now halve Rockman's defenses. For his second half phase, he Finds Weakness again, but fails his roll. Per FREd, Deadeye now has Rockman at half defenses, but cannot further reduce Rockman's defenses in this encounter. Phase 2: Deadeye should just slip away and try again another day, but he has Impatient at a total commitment level. So he fires an attack at Rockman, and declines to halve Rockman's defenses. This is where your initial answer kicks in: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A character who succeeds with a Find Weakness roll may, if he chooses, not use the halving of defense (perhaps because he’s afraid of hurting the target too badly). If he declines to use the effect, that cancels the roll, and if he later wants to use Find Weakness against the same target in the same combat, he has to succeed with the roll again (though at no penalty for a “successive rollâ€). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So Deadeye can no longer reduce Rockman's defenses at all. Phase 3: Deadeye tries to Find Weakness on Rockman. What happens? (a) Deadeye has failed a Find Weakness roll in this encounter. His attempt automatically fails. ( Because Deadeye waived the halving of defenses, he can make a normal FW roll against Rockman, as if he had never made the roll in phase 12. Success will halve Rockman's defenses. Assuming (, and that Deadeye succeeds, in his FW roll, he then uses the other half of phase 3 for another Find Weakness roll. What happens now? (a) Deadeye failed previously to Find Weakness to get Rockman down to 1/4 Defenses. Therefore, he cannot reduce Rockman's defenses below 1/2 at any time in this encounter. [To me, the reasonable result.] ( When Deadeye waived his FW bonus in phase 2, it essentially cancelled all FW attempts in this encounter. He can try again to reduce Rockman's defenses to 1/4, 1/8, etc. until he again misses a FW roll. Phase 4: Rockman, tired of this discussion, rolls a 3 and slugs Deadeye into next week.

The question below leads to another VPP question. In my campaign, I would generally rule that, if you place a power with charges in a VPP, you can't reallocate the points once the charges are used until the charges recover. Otherwise, the limitation doesn't actually limit the character and he should instead pay +1/2 for 0 END. A guy with a 60 point VPP can just take a 12d6 Ice Blast (1 charge) for 20 points of the VPP. When this is gone, switch the points to a 12d6 Fire Blast (1 charge), and so on through various special effects. Use the remaining 40 points for other effects, and get your attacks at 0 END. Assume that the attack was 4 charges (-1), so it cost 30 points. If the character used 2 charges, then swapped the points out, how many VPP points would be left? 45, because he used half of the 30 points in this power, or 54 because a 2 charge power (which is what's left) would cost 24 points, plus the unallocated 30?

That's my recollection as well - if you swing it one handed, it just raises the STR min.

I reread my question and now I'm confused... OK, let's use an example. Deadeye has Find Weakness 17- with his pistol. He targets Rockman and rolls a 15, success, halving his DEX. Next phase, he tries for a second roll, but rolls a 16 - fails due to the -2 penalty for successive attempts. Rockman is 1/2 DEF against Deadeye's pistol. Deadeye fires a shot at Rockman, but does not halve Rockman's defenses. He foregoes the Find Weakness, and must try again if he wishes to halve Rockman's defenses. Next phase, Deadeye tries Find Weakness again: Q1: Does he need a 17- or a 15-? Assume he rolls an 8. He has halved Rockman's defenses. He now attempts to Find Weakness again. Q2: Can Deadeye succeed at all? In other words, by foregoing the FW on his earlier shot, does Deadeye now have a chance to find further weaknesses and get Rockman's defenses below the result of his first failed roll. [Personally, I'd say no, but for the record...] He missed the second halving once in this combat, and I would expect that to mean he can't find a weakness that quarters RockMan's defenses for the rest of the combat.

Hmm...what happens if we apply this in Fantasy Hero? The first time BOD gets through, your armor is destroyed.

In your response to followup I, you indicate the character can decide not to use his FW, even after a successful roll. Presumably, he simply doesn't target the weakness. You then indicate he would then be required to re-roll in order to use the FW again. Assume he had previously made a FW roll, then missed a second roll to halve defenses again. It would seem appropriate that, if the character refrains from using FW on his next attack, then rolls again to FW again (target back to half defense), he culd not follow this up with another roll to halve the defenses again, down to a quarter. In other words, refraining from exploiting the weakness would not set the character up to make more rolls, potentially reducing the target's defenses below the point where he previously failed a roll. [Hopefully the above makes sense. If not, tell me and I'll try to rephrase.]