Hugh Neilson

Reduced Stun Multiple on a KA is -1/4 per reduction, capping at -1/2 for "always 1". Practically, "always 1/2" isn't much more limiting, so I'd agree with sticking to -1/2. I'd be reluctant to lower the active point cost or the DC computation. 6 DCs of killing is 2d6, for an average roll of 7 BOD. Make it 3d6 for an average of 10.5 BOD, and the impact, I expect, will be PCs buying more rDEF - not PCs taking more BOD - as they want characters who can survive. They will be looking for heavier armor, for example. Although that issue goes away if we assume normal defenses reduce BOD but not STUN. With an average of 8 Def, 4 rDef, that 7 BOD wounds for 3 BOD past defenses, while this new model will average 2.5 BOD past 8 defenses.

I am sure it has nothing to do with how displeased Trump and others in his administration are with the EU's proposed tax changes to address the digital economy. The Canadian PM is under self-isolation because his wife was diagnosed with COVID-19 shortly after her return from a trip to the UK.

To me, the GM review of the sheet is an important part of the process. If I am buying great interaction stats and skills, seven different languages and a few Linguistics skills, I am telling the GM that I want/expect this character to overcome challenges by being able to communicate broadly, effectively and persuasively. Maybe that is right in line with his plan for the game (he may even have said so, perhaps indicating this will be a globetrotting campaign where the PCs will interact with many different potential allies, as well as possible and definite allies). Great - character is easy to approve. Perhaps he is planning a game set in a single small town, where everyone speaks the local language. Either he decides to adjust the campaign, or he says "hey, keep the language skills, but they will not be more than backdrop in the game (like the Beast changing languages every page for an issue of Avengers to show off, but never actually needing to speak to someone in those languages) so you can zero out the point cost - but here's a couple of possible spends that would be useful and look consistent with your character design". Maybe he also plans to resolve all interaction based on "player role playing" (i.e. arbitrarily depending on GM assessment of player eloquence rather than character skill), so don't bother dropping all those points in interaction skills. Perhaps I misread the game, and it will focus largely around combat, not interaction, so the GM suggests reducing these investments to shore up combat stats, if he's not willing to add a bunch of interaction-based challenges. Ensuring the characters will fit the game and the game will fit the characters is not a problem, it's good game management. Where the problem arises is when he does not review the character for suitability for the game, and we end up with a Face PC in a game focused exclusively on hunting and killing alien xenomorphs, travelling in a spacecraft and never meeting a non-PC that's anything but a bug-eyed monster that wants to kill us all. The player spent a big chunk of points on abilities that are irrelevant to the game, he can't compete with PCs actually built for he game and he never gets to use the points he spent. THAT is a problem. The solution may be a GM modifying the game plan to incorporate the character better, it may be the player making a character more appropriate to the game ("no combat-incapable sages" is not a lot different from "no asshole loners" - both reject characters who will detract from the game rather than enhance it), or it may be a combination of the two. In extreme cases, the answer may be that one player does not want to play the game in question, and should bow out. I don't know that I've ever hit that extreme as a player, but I have shelved a concept that was not right for THIS game to dust it off later for a more appropriate game. Or it may be that the game the GM wants to run is not one that the players want to play, so he may need to run a different game, or they may need to find a different GM.

Earlier this week, $275 million of medical research spending was announced by the Federal government. Are we the first government to shut down? Parliament is suspended for five weeks after today, resulting in cancellation of the scheduled release of the Budget. Given the PM's wife is a confirmed case, and we have five other self-quarantined MPs, including two cabinet ministers, I'd say it's the right answer. I am also impressed that all parties reached agreement, with no one looking to score political points.

It feels like he may have found his excuse to close the borders. The US has been a vocal opponent of European tax proposals to address the allocation of taxation rights on income earned through the digital economy. While some of the precautions and reactions make sense, others feel like security theatre. My son's school cancelled an annual charity event yesterday, a bike-a-thon where the kids stay overnight at school. I am sure that not letting them stay at the school for 16 or so hours from 4 PM Friday to 8 AM Saturday, in the same place where, and with the same people with whom, they attend classes all day, five days a week, will markedly reduce any risk of further spreading COVID-19. 🙄

China appears to have turned the corner...https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ With over 64% of total cases (as of this post), and over 68% if deaths, they have over 75% of their cases recovered (almost 92% of recoveries to date) and less than 30% of active cases. Hopefully, we will see other countries enter a similar curve.

OK, this probably is fake news... https://mjd.id.au/node/66605841

This is where we get into what, precisely, the spell can do. If it causes all the tumblers to fall into place, the computer system to open up the door, whatever, then it must do so by either determining the password or circumventing it, and moving the door bar. In d20, you can certainly write down "the spell will not intuit verbal or written passwords, nor will it remove the bar from a door". In Hero, we should be able to build an "unlock anything" spell that can unlock anything, including locks governed by verbal passwords and barred doors. Put a dozen armed guards behind the door, and now it's open and you have a new problem that unlocking things is not going to solve, of course.

Absolutely. My question is how big the "I want to build my own world and structure my own game" to "I want to tinker with the rules" market segment is, falling between "I want to play the game already written" and "I want to design my own game" segments. Not big enough for 5e/6e to sell enough, if history is an indication. I think a lot of people on these Boards will fall into that segment - but that's why they are playing Hero, which brings them to these Boards. The broader market had not been as supportive of "DIY game with Hero rules".

To me, it's like everything else - how effective is this in-game? 1d6 Cumulative Telepathy with a huge maximum could be a game-breaker, or rarely, if ever, useful. If locked doors aren't tough to get by in the game, a tiny power to get past one is no big deal.

I can see that - my thinking was more using the maneuver to close and attack instead of just close into attacking range. I suspect, however, that someone built to leverage those maneuvers would invest a bit more into movement speed, which bulks up Move Through faster than Move By. Still, not a huge variance between the two - and if the Move By can better avoid retaliatory attacks, I can devote skill levels to damage and/or OCV.

Sure - but it's a lot further to go from D20 to "do it all myself" than from "assemble my game from Hero parts" to "do it all myself".

BTW, to the comment that "no one" would build a weapon that an average user would wield at -1 OCV, I am pretty sure people used War Hammers, Long Spears and Pole Arms, each of which has a base -1 OCV penalty.

Again, I do not see how you can read the words that way. That does not mean I agree with that approach, but it does mean I cannot read the words that way. My preference would be not to modify the rules for weapons, but treat them as a normal Move By. Ignoring mounts for a moment, let's look at our burly 18 STR Viking Axeman. He can Run 12 meters. He can make a half move and attack at no penalty to OCV or DCV, striking for a 2d6+1 KA (2d6 for the battle axe + 1 DC for STR) RAW your (incorrect ;)) interpretation: He can make a full move and Move By at -2 OCV, -2 DCV and inflict a 2d6+1 KA (2d6 for the axe + 1 DC for 10 meters movement). RAW my (correct ;)) interpretation: He can make a full move and Move By at -3 OCV, -2 DCV and inflict a 2d6 KA (2d6 for the axe + 1 DC for 10 meters movement - 1 DC because he can only bring 9 of his 18 STR to bear). More accurate moveby rule: He can make a full move and Move By at -2 OCV, -2 DCV and inflict a 1 1/2d6 KA (2d6 for the axe + 1 DC for 10 meters movement = 7 DC, halved is 3.5 DC so we will give him 4, +1 DC for 10 meters movement). RAW your (incorrect ;)) interpretation: He can make a full move and Move Through at -1 OCV, -3 DCV and inflict a 2 1/2d6 KA (2d6 for the axe +2DC for 12 meters movement). RAW my (correct ;)) interpretation: He can make a full move and Move Through at -2 OCV, -3 DCV and inflict a 2d6+1 KA (2d6 for the axe + 2 DC for 12 meters movement - 1 DC because he can only bring 9 of his 18 STR to bear). More accurate movethrough rule: He can make a full move and Move Through at -1 OCV, -3 DCV and inflict a 3d6 KA (2d6 for the axe + 2 DC for 12 meters movement +1 DC for STR). -1 OCV, but -3 DCV, to do more damage and risk damage to your weapon? You won't roll 18 BOD with either attack, so no risk of breaking the weapon under 6e RAW. Under the more accurate rule, no knockback and a maximum damage roll would break the weapon. Under my or your interpretation, the Move Through seems superior - better OCV, worse DCV (same change, so allocate a skill level to DCV instead of OCV) and better damage. Your approach is 1/2 DC and 1 OCV better in all case, so the only real question becomes how big the penalty for a full move + attack should be. The Move Through becomes the clear choice if we follow the "halve damage for move by but not move through" approach that has historically (pre-6e) applied. Mounted Combat Oddly, the rules discussion of mounted combat never incorporates a Move By or Move Through, likely because the penalties are significant and the rider does not have to use any actions to move, so there is no need to ever make a full move before an attack. But they always take a -2 OCV penalty. An example of a Move By would have been nice - not sure I want my mount crashing into the opponent to do a Move Through. A Lance can only be used from horseback, and STR over the 13 STR Min does not add to damage.

Just think of all the available gaming time!

Now THERE is a market which has largely gone untapped...[blasted autocorrect]

Practically, if we have a GM who is a world-builder, and a game-builder, how far is he from writing his own rules rather than buying any published game, whatever system powers it, or even any published system to use to build his game?

I'd say relying on "worldbuilders" isn't a much more likely success strategy than relying on "gamebuilders". Those sectors can already use Hero - this model needs to provide games for those who do not want to build from scratch, a vast market segment Hero has moved away from.

I am not able to fathom how you can read the actual words in the rules and reach the conclusion that the rules say "only halve the excess STR". I can certainly see how you could read and understand what the words say, but consider that an inappropriate rule. I do not read that as saying "you cannot move and wield the spear effectively", but "you cannot run full tilt and still control the spear as effectively as if you were devoting your efforts partially to movement and partially to controlling the spear". If the rules simply said "you can't attack at all if you make a full move - you must devote a half phase attack action to be able to attack at all", would you consider that a superior rule?

Yep - moved from very common names to less common name. Of course, "Albus", "Dumbledore", "Severus" and "Snape" aren't exactly all that common either... Try introducing yourself at a party as "Voldemort", even before prefacing with "Lord". He chose to pick a weird name for his own reasons. Yeah, I kind of figured the evolution to "Kevin" would spell it more phonetically in English (or any other language that adopted it) without markedly changing the pronunciation. Kind of like English speakers do not see the name "Siobhan" and immediately parse it out as "Chev On"

The weapon in question was not discarded - the user stayed on the horse and continued to raise it up and lower it down. But it would be pretty much useless on foot. While I don't find the 6e approach horrific, I think simply applying the rules to the pre-movement DCs just like they would apply to unarmed combat damage would work fine. You have a 1d6 base damage weapon and +1 DC from STR? OK, that's 4 DCs. If you do a Move By, that becomes 4/2 = 2 DCs + v/10 DCs. Assuming a 12 meter movement rate, you get 3 DCs. Move Through? OK, that's your base 4 DCs + v/6 = 6 DCs total. Move Through halving STR, while I can see it from a "quasi-realism" perspective, is less consistent because the move through does not halve anything else. Perhaps that is why the wall of pikemen ended charges pretty effectively. You can try to hit, and perhaps prevent a counterattack, or you can run up and give your opponent the first shot. Perhaps more to the point, you can run up shrieking and yelling, wildly waving your weapon beside your fellow attackers who are all doing the same, and hope that the resulting PRE attack causes the defenders to hesitate long enough that you get to attack first after closing. That would seem to explain why the Highlanders were so effective charging until the English defeated the maneuver with better discipline amongst their troops (and more knowledge of what to expect). Which, surprise, turned that infantry charge into a garbage maneuver. I don't see a lot of Hero encounters where the enemy is a massive line, shoulder to shoulder, with no space in between that the rules allow you to stroll through. Nor do I see why, having ruled that you cannot simply pass through the enemy's hex, it would suddenly become possible to do so because you attempted a Move Through and missed, or even attempted a Move By and hit. So we agree that it is obvious the phrasing of the rule halves the entire 17 STR, so you get a penalty, not just the 5 STR over the STR minimum. We both read the rule the same way - ScottishFox is now on the same page, and I struggle to see how he would have previously read it differently. In any case, we found one place where we reach consensus It's pretty easy for the linebacker to run full-tilt into me shoulder first, and it won't hurt me a lot less if he just broadsides me. I don't think it would be as easy for him to keep that spear pointed directly at me, while running full tilt towards me, and while I do my level best to avoid the pointy bit at the end. It would be a lot easier to hold the spear across his chest and crash into me (pretty sure that's how lacrosse players hold their crosse (lacrosse stick" when they bodycheck), but then the pointy end isn't doing its job (no pointy end in lacrosse).

Gaelic is not easy to read/pronounce. I do note that, when I type "Caoimhín " into Google Translate, it comes back as being Irish for "Kevin".

The forward momentum from the running start works fully in favour of the forward distance you wish to jump, so I do not find that a fully valid comparison. Damage done by that spear is dependent on more than simple forward momentum. Try picking up a shovel and charging with one end of that shovel pointing straight forward. If the spear is directly pointed at the opponent, it should deliver considerably more force. A glancing blow, however, is more likely to be deflected, and if you strike with the shaft rather than the point, it's not going to be nearly as effective. More force which is not as precisely directed will deliver less results. If you hit a nail straight on with a hammer, it will be driven forward. If you hit that nail twice as hard, but 30 degrees off of straight, will it go twice as far into the board? I believe you mentioned physics earlier... Perhaps I misinterpreted. I read you as saying "I read that as saying that, if you have an 18 STR and the weapon has a 12 STR Min, you would have the 6 extra STR". As I read the quote from the rulebook above, it is pretty clear that you halve the 18 STR, leaving 9 STR which falls 3 short of the STR min. I am not sure how it could reasonably be interpreted as only halving the extra STR. But it seems like we agree the rule does say "halve STR, then compare to STR min".

Some years back, in a UK museum (IIRC, Scotland, but may have been England), we had a fellow explain a "two handed sword". It was more or less useless in melee combat, unless its user was huge (remembering that "huge" in the 1200's or 1600's was not as big as today) and exceptionally strong. It was actually primarily used as a one handed weapon (now, we called it a 2 handed sword - the name locally was more descriptive than game-mechanical). But it was used from horseback. One hand held the reins, and the other held the sword, which was simply allowed to swing down in an arc beside the horse, relying on the horse's momentum and some gravity, not the weilder's own muscle power. Again, though, not very cinematic. To me, it seems unfair that you would get the full benefit of your STR and weapon damage doing a move by when someone using a bare-handed attack only gets half their STR. With a move through, you are not faced with applying half your damage (full if the opponent is not moved), instead risking damage to your weapon. If that is a real possibility, it is a reasonable tradeoff in its own right. Allowing full STR with a move through would not bother me that much - the DCV penalty is worse than Move By, and the OCV penalty gets worse the more extra damage you are able to inflict, plus there is that damage to the attacker. The choice the warrior is faced with, to me, is not "you have half of your chance to hit with a move-by, or you can have your full chance to hit". It is "you are too distant to close and attack - do you want to attack, despite a hit being only half as likely as in a straight-up melee, or do you prefer not to attack at all?" Really, he is sacrificing 2 DCV for the possibility of a successful attack - his OCV does not matter if he makes a full move with no attack. Of course, I view the alternative as "figure out your total DCs with STR and weapon, halve that, and then add the velocity bonus". You won't take the increased OCV penalty, but I suspect your damage will be reduced instead of enhanced. How is it any easier than normal movement? Hero doesn't really do "blocking your path". I do not see how you get that from In particular, if your STR is enough that you get extra damage, you do not have a DC or OCV penalty. I don't think you are weaker. I do think the fact that your feet and legs are being used as propulsion makes them less available to also brace to direct your weapon forcefully and accurately.

Funny...Kevin is celtic in origin. Although adopting one of the variants would have been a better fit.