Hugh Neilson

I like the concept. I think the approach I would take is to say that your Damage Reduction is non-persistent (I believe -1/4) and requires a full phase (is that -1/2 or -3/4?). It's a defense power so, logically, you can now abort to it or, alernatively, spend your phase "pre-activating" it. As for the knockback, I'd call that a Side Effect (minor effect; whenever activated - whatever that adds up to).

This argues for varying the costs of many different advantages depending on the campaign norms. This is certainly an aproach which could be taken and supported. However, if Hero had taken that apprach, the advantages section wuld have not one cost, but several, depending on the campaign power level. It does not. Nor do genre books assign differing values to the various advantages to reflect their reduced or enhanced applicability in such settings. Instead, many advantages are naturally better suited to some campaign structures than others. As such, these advnatages are used more in such settings. CONCLUSION: Although varying the cost of advantages to fit the genre and average power levels would be one way to design a game, it is not the method adopted by the HEro system. Instead, some advnatages will be considered more seriously in some settings than in others. "Difficult to Dispel" is seldom taken in super campaigns, at least in my experience. Do you apply a reduced cost (say +1/4 for two doubliungs) to encourage it, or simply accept that this is an advantage which is of limited utility, and consequently will rarely be seen, in a Supers campaign? It seems a lot more valuable in a Fantasy Hero campaign (especially one where every two bit spellcaster has a Dispel - any magic power of 10d6 or more, and defense spells are restricted by your GM to +6/+6 [12 points, 21 if you make your force field 0 END Hardened]. If you want to rewrite the rules to suit the specifics of your campaign, that's your preorgantive. But you commonly post these changes to the Boards as though you feel these should be the default rule in FREd, not as specific tweakings applicable only to the specifics of your campaign world.

VIPER is always doing R & D on new equipment. These guys would be good choices to test it out. Hey, if it works, we have a new item for the arsenal. If it blows up or leaks radiation, we lost a guy who was a wild card anyway. Considering they're testing prototypes, they'd also come in contact with heroes "Hunted by VIPER" a lot, wouldn't they? After all, here's this new gadget specifically designed to deal with Amorphous Man - let's get it some field testing!

Rather than "only to PRE Attack", what about "Not for skills"? This PRE both attacks and defends, but does not enhance any skills. This would be, at most, a -1/4 limitation, and possibly -0 (if the creature lacks any of these skills). Alternatively, buy the PRE without limitations and give the creature a physical limitation: - X to PRE skills. How often it is inconvenient to the specific creature will determine the value of the disad. You can always say "all PRE skills except Interrogation" if you want.

See, this is the problem with "assume". The game must simulate systems where average defense is very high or very low. An old poll found campaigns where average attacks were 10d6 and average defenses 35, and others where average attacks were 15d6 and average defenses 15. What should the cost be in these capmaigns? This type of variance may have gone by the wayside with "campaign norms" in the book, of course. And even if they haven't, the rules can hardly be faulted for falling down if we devate markedly from the norms they are designed for. But look! We have different genres. How do the numbers add up in a campaign where resistant defenses average 5, and total defenses average 10, but attacks of 3d6 KA (or 9d6 normal damage) are common [typical 150 point campaign]? Seems to me that's pretty close for Fantasy Hero - if anything, spell attacks (where you'll most often see a +1 Stun Multiple] get even higher! I'd quote some Star Hero figures but alas! I don't have those genre books. Perhaps some sci fi fan will add to my comments above. This variability makes it pretty tough to base an advantage on average stun that gets through average defenses from an average DC attack! Note that Stun Multiple bonuses are hardly the only advantages whose impact varies depending on genre. If we're working with 45 AP attacks and 5/10 defenses, what use is a Penetrating KA? 2d6 Penetrating KA gets 2 BOD through on an average attack anyway - a 3d6 KA will get 5.5 BOD through. And let's not even talk about a 9d6 EB vs 6d6 Penetrating! Armor piercing's impact varies similarly. Your analysis considers only relatively high average attacks and defenses - the system has to consider all the power levels it is designed to play at.

I once had a player compare 3 game systems as ("win" being "achieve your objective" whatever it may be for the scenario): Champions - if you play half decent, you will almost certainly win. If you play poorly, you are still highly unlikely to die D & D: if you play exceptionally, you will likely win and almost certainly survive. If you play half decent, you might win, and have a risk of death. If you play poorly, you still have a reasonable chance of survival, but will likely not win. Call of Cthulhu: If you play exceptionally, you have about a 50/50 chance of survival and a slim hope of winning. If you don't, bring lots of character sheets.

In most RPG's, if a character has died and cannot/will not be returning (comic books and fantasy RPG's, for example, sometimes have very short death cycles), the polayer makes a new character who somehow finds their way to the group. In Champions, death can be an excellent opportunity to revise, rather than replace, a character (eg. Green Lantern Hal Jordan, now the Spectre, at DC)

Sorry - I had it the other way round in my head (one chapter per disad with Creation; Combat; Capmpaigning sections). Hmmm...design by comittee wouldn't really be complete if we don't scrap and redesign at least once in the process, would it? Under the present model, I'd put the exaples at the end of each disad's section in Character Creation (creation is where we reaslly need examples anyway). We can then return to these examples as needed for illustrative purposes in the later chapters.

I'd rather see it as a fourth section to each chapter - sample psych lim's in the psych lim chapter, sample phys lim's in the phys lim chapter. And a solid index, probably separate from the main index, of sample disad's.

This approach would encourage a different combat style, as you note - Rapid Fire, then abort. It becomes a different style, not necessarily better or worse. I recall a survey long ago on Champions games where the company was surprised with results like campaigns with average defenses of 35 and average attacks of 8-10d6, and average defenses of 15 and average attacks of 15d6. Obviously, combat styles would be very different. The abovew approach would lead to fast, brutal combat allowing everyone to avoid the penalties. The "wait one segment" fix would keep the structure we're used to, with elimination of the manipulative "dealy/abort" tactic to minimize penalties. Tough to say which would be better - depends on the desired playstyle. It's also tough since neither of us sees the tactic, so we're not likely to test either fix.

What about removing the reference to trhe age of the character entirely (making this a "Characteristic Maxima" disad only). Why can't a character be "Frail", with the limits presently attributed to 40+, or even "Feeble", with attribute maxima more stringent than 60+?

I would say rather he loses any benefit for his combat luck WHILE wearing his 6 DEF armor. Now, that requires looking at how often characters are unable to wear their armor in your campaign. If they spend most of their time out of civilized environs, where they wear their armor (or wear their armor in civilized locales and suffer no ill effects for it), then they don't get much of the benefits. Do they (CAN they) sleep in their armor? An attack during the night will soon make that combat luck pay for itself. Certainly, it restricts the use of the ability, which reduces the value of the ability. So does "total DEF cannot exceed 9". Some restriction is realistically needed to keep defenses at a level where a character can be injured. Depending on the extent to which you perceive this weakens the Combat Luck, I would assign a limitation value, but I would probably still make that a mandatory limitation, not an optional one.

What about applying an automatic limitation on combat luck that you lose 1 rDEF for every 2 rDEF you have from other sources? After all, you don't need all that luck when you're encased in steel anyway, do you? So if a character has 9/9 combat luck (awfully high, in my view), and wears 8 DEF Plate Mail, he loses 4 Combat Luck and ends up with 13 DEF. Your dwarf would have 6 DEF, since half the armor bonus equals the combat luck. If he wears lighter armor (say 4 DEF), he gets 1 point of combat luck remaining, for 5 DEF in total, so he still benefits from somewhat heavier armor. Oh, he may whine a bit about the loss in vaue of his combat luck, but the first time he's attacked with no armor, he'll remember why he paid those CP's!

BTW, do you really think they did not see the difference between "my character chooses not to use his most potent attack in order to not kill the guy" and "My Gm asked me as a player not to have my character do this effective tactic too often so I only have him decide its Ok to use it in special circumstances" when they used one to frex the other? [/b] I can't think of any other explanation.

Sorry, but your claim is spurious. Regardless of whether your DEX is one or 100, you can abort at any time in the next phase. I think a good game provides an in-game reason for heroes to follow the genre, such as penalties for all out attacks which discourage their constant use. For example, why don't supers carry weapons and wear bullet proof vests? The rules could say "Equipment is purchased with money. But superheroes shouldn't wear bulletproof vests and carry flamethrowers because that's not the way the comics do it." This would, of course, be a load of crap. Instead, the bok says "Superheroes must pay character points if they want to carry equipment around. This is why few supers in the comics carry large amounts of gear, even though it would seem sensible for them to do so." Thus, there is an in-game reason why Tiger-Man does not carry a flamethrower, despite the advantages it would give him in combat.

The "cost" argument doesn't hold up in my books. Compare a VPP with -2 in limitations to a multipower with -2 in limitations. Assume each has a 60 point pool. The VPP will cost 60 points for the pool. No limitations will apply. To make it change automatically as a zero phase action (like a Multipower does), we must take +2 advantages on the control cost, so that costs us 30. Total cost: 90 points. The Multi pool will cost 60/3 = 20. Each slot will cost 4 points if it is a 60 point multi slot, so we can afford 17 of them. We could afford 35 ultra slots - pretty versatile in my books That's not the whole story, however - the VPP can have 3 60 AP powers going at a time if those limitations apply to the powers in the pool, and aren't just restrictions on the control cost. If the limits al impact the control cost only, however, the multi has a pretty comparable cost. A 60 point cosmic VPP with no limits, however, would have cost 150 points. A 60 point multi with no limitations could still have the dozen or so slots suggested (some ultras, some not) for a comparable cost. 12 Ultras would cost 18 points less, and 12 multi slots 54 more. And if it is just a way of reducing the point efficiency on limitations, why is Extra Time the only limitation affected? I'm inclined to say it's because the powers themselves do not have extra time to activate. It may take you (say) a day to change the powers in your VPP, but having done so, each one can be used freely, without extra time. An Energy Blast with a one day activation time normally takes a day to activate, fires once, and now you need another day to activate it again. The limitation is, I believe, halved if you can fire repeatedly once you spend the time to activate the power once. Even then, I would expect that ther are restrictions to how long the power can stay "active", or we'd all have "takes 20 years to activate, then can be used at will", and define our characters as mutants whose powers took 20 years to manifest.

Can you provide a page or FAQ reference for this? It's something I'd never considered, frankly.

This is way out of what we're discussing, in my view. This is "character creation metagaming". Yeah, TigerMan would be more combat effective with a flamethrower, but it doesn't fit his tiger concept, so I, the player, don't spend points on a flamethrower for TigerMan. The rapid fire issue differs because I don't need to spend points to have access to the maneuver - it is available to every character. Now, I could take "cannot be rapid fired" for -1/4, but I need to have a character concept for why this attack is incapable of rapid firing, and that doesn't fit too many characters. So knowing the character can do this, and knowing the most effective way to do so, why, logically, would the character restruct this to only the most dire of situations? I can think of a few reasons: - it takes a full phase, so I won't use it if I need the other half phase. - it halves my DCV (but if I can eliminate that drawback simply by delaying, that drawback should only enter the equation when there is a reason not to delay) - it sucks up a lot of END, and I don't want to risk exhausting myself with this all out burst, then being unable to act if it doesn't succeed (which is why mjy example posits a zero END attack) - it reduces my OCV, so I need to consider my odds of hitting But assuming the situation is such that the drawbacks are minimized (eg. I have a superior OCV, or can spread and make up the penalties and get more damage from likely multiple hits than a single full power hit, it's a zero END attack, I can abort to eliminate the DCV issue, and I don't have any pressiung use for a half phase action), why would the character not use the maneuver? Maybe a psych lim. I was going to challenge this being d20, but now that I think of it, there is a resemblance. Of course, d20 modified much of D&D to be more similar with Hero, so maybe we should look at the differences with an open mind. That's another issue, however. Whether a solution is cut from whole cloth or cribbed from another system isn't really the issue. Is it a good solution? If so, why should it matter who thought of it first? I dispute your claim that high DEX offsets the drawbacks of rapid fire. The issue here is not the rapid fire maneuver, it is the combination of a late Rapid Fire and an early Abort to avoid the drawbacks. Absent the ability to avoid the DCV penalty, high DEX offsets the OCV penalt (I'm more likely to still hit) but exacerbates the DCV penalty (I lose a lot more DCV than Giganto, for example). Allowing the character to elimninate the DCV penalties for rapid fire does, in my opinion, mandate/encourage its more frequent use. The optiosn for correcting this are "the unwritten rule" (we don't rapid fire in this campaign unless it's truly a dire situation") or a mechanic that ensures the drawbacks of the maneuver must be faced. To take another example, assume the character making the choice is a villain, rather than a hero. He does not care about excessiove force, or the risk of seriously injuring, or killing, his opponent. He can abort next phase and eliminate the DCV penalty, and he has the OCV and END to make it work. Is it reasonable that he rarely, if ever, uses Rapid Fire, or is this just a fiat that "well, he could, but then he'd hit to hard so he won't"? Our villain is now making out of character choices. If it's "He would, but then he's a much easier target for a significant window of time, and he doesn't want to take that risk", the villain is now being role played. "Boy, he sure is fast for such a big guy" is a very common comic quote. It is certainly in genre for characters to think about DEX and SPEED - albeit in their terms, not those of game mechanics. If Spider Man didn't, he would never have beaten Firelord! Delay itself is not the problem, in my view. The problem is the ability to shorten the timeframe (potentially to elimination) in which penalties for certain maneuvers apply. Why should anyone move at a high DEX? And knowing that moving at a high DEX is rarely, if ever, advantageous, why not have a low DEX and make it up in OCV levels and defenses, take all offensive powers with Delayed Phase, etc.? For 27 points, I can buy three 5 point skill level (+1 OCV) and +4/+4 resistant defenses. If I can cover my attacks with 3 point skill levels, I can get +6/+6 resistant defenses (or +9/+9 non-resistant, if I already have enough DEF that KA's don't scare me). If there is no advantage to moving first, I haven't lost much by making this choice, have I? Viewed in this light, it is the ability to abort regardless of DEX or time of last move cheapens the value of DEX. Quasar Leader of Millennium Force [/b] Which is why I agreed with tesuji that metagaming is hard to pin down. Metagaming takes place mainly in the mind of a player, and who among us can actually read minds? I think though that mature gamers, who are less interested in WINNING at all costs and more interested in telling an engaging and exciting group story will avoid metagaming like the plague. From my point of view, I can think of nothing more boring than delay, delay, delay...and that is enough reason for me not to do it.[/b] Metagaming is when the PLAYER is thinking "win at al costs" and prepared to ignore his character's personality in doing so. However, when I ignore my character's personality by not attempting the most valid and effective maneuver he would perceive, in a situation where victory is important to him, because "we don't use that maneuver in our game", I am poorly role playing my character, and just as guilty of metagaming. And that includes saying "this maneuver is the most effective, but it's boring me, the player, so I won't do it." [i'm playing Batman], just as much as it includes saying "this maneuver is the most effective, so I'll use it despite the fact it requires my impatient and impulsive character to delay, which he finds boring" [i'm playing Impulse].

All your answers are reasonable, and pretty much what I would be inclined to rule. One followup, though. You refer to an OCV penalty for fighting telekinetically rather than HTH. Would you allow the character to define his weapon familiarity as being telekinetic in nature, with the penalty applying if he does not use TK? [Yes, this is a bit outside the rules, but so was your -1 OCV comment, so I'm hoping you'll look the other way and provide your views on this one.] Thanks Hugh

The example should be restricted to situations where the character's objective is to put his opponent down as fast as possible. No question that Rapid Firing your 15d6 EB against some poor VIPER agent (or an unknown villain) is excessive, and a "Superheroic Character" (as opposed to any character with superheroic point values) would not be taking that approach. However, if your objective is to put that dangerous adersary down as quickly as possible, and you can avoid the rapid fire penalties, it would seem the character would generally choose to do so, not say "well, this villain seems like one we can beat without rapid fire, so I won't use it". And here we differ. I believe the rules should ensure the penalties for powerful tactical moves available at no point cost are, in fact PENALTIES. Simply saying "oh, Rapid Fire only works on GM say-so" doesn;t do it for me. "Oh, I could rapid fire, and it would be in character to do so" (ie no "Overconfident" or other psych this violates, no concern this will seriously injure the unknown oppoent, etc.) "but I won't because the GM frowns on regular use of rapid fire" indicates to me a campaign where the maneuver has been semi-banned. That's certainly another solution, but I'd rather not have a "power/tactic forgotten except when the writer needs it as a plot device" structure to my campaign. I would prefer a structure where the choice of rapid fire carries risk (ie 1/2 DCV), and enforcing a period of time between rapid fire and availability of Abort seems an effective way of ensuring that risk exists. And I like this approach. Still, it remains limited. Replace "end of phase" with "after Giganto/the thug/the agent moves" and you still have a fairly reliable "end of phase, I will be able to abort by the time anyone not also delaying gets a move" measurement. It is, howeber, limited to segments on which these slow characters get a phase. ummm...Rapid Fure and Sweep are combat maneuvers available to virtually everyone. Now if they all had Rapid Attack and levels to offset the OCV/DCV penalties, I might agree with your cookie cutter analogy. Perhaps your group is so dedicated to role playing that a couple of members of your team have extremely limited attack capabilities, for example (eg. Kitty Pryde in the X-Men), but that's not a length to which many players go. Once we accept that each character has a reasonably effective attack, Sweep/Rapid Fire become valid options. Where I see metagaming is where the same character thinks "Hey, I've got the drop on him - should I risk an all out attack and hope to take him down before he clocks my teammate? No, that will leave me exposed, unable to dodge, to all the other guys who move this segment. I know I can dodge again at exactly the same time, no matter when I make my attack, so I'll wait to attack and leave a lesser window of opportunity by minimizing the time it takes to recover my bearings. Good thing Sensei drilled me on that Speed Chart so intensively!"

Simply replace "at DEX 100" with "at whatever point someone attacks him", or "at whatever point someone he believes is a threat attacks him". The same logic applies - the cyaracter has avoided the penalty of halved DCV. Umm...not sure why Knockback would eliminate the penalties - now you're prone. I think tesuyji's mechanic has a certain simplicity, but it would be just as easy to implement a rule that you can never act any earlier than 1 segment later, same DEX at which you acted. Then everyone has the same delay of exactly one segment. Want to move sooner? Take the "hurry" penalty. Perhaps one might allow "cumulative Hurry" - ie I can't move until 7 more DEX, so I "hurry" - roll d6 until they total 7. Multiply the dice by 2. That's your OCV and DCV penalty for hurrying, and the rapid fire penalty is ended. I don't think tesuji has implemented his suggestion - it was a suggested rules fix if "delay delay delay" is a problem in your campaign.

Assume a Heroic character has telekinesis (say a wizard with a spell). (a) Can he use this TK to wield weapons? [That's the easy one since he can do anything he could do with STR...] Would this require Fine Manipulation [to use only the Strike maneuver, as Grab would not apply and those are the TK maneuvers]? ( If he can, does he need Weapon Familiarity with the weapon to avoid OCV penalties? © Can he use skill levels with the weapon through his telekinesis? Why yes, my FH mage DOES have a telekinesis spell (and an 8 STR). Why do you ask?

Quasar, I just have to ask this: If the tactic is one which is highly effective, and the character knows this, how "in character" can it be for the character not to do it very often? I know the most efficient route to travel from my hom,e to work, and numerous less efficient routes. I take the most efficient route when going to work every time because it works. If my character can delay to end of phase, raoid fire, then abort at the start of the next phase, and this is the character's most efficient tactic, I suggest to you that it is generally poor role playing NOT to use it. The character has the goal of victory before the villain can escape or do any more harm. Why would he not use the most efficient means of accomplishing that goal every time? The reason he will not rapid fire every time is that there is a drawback - reeduced DCV and the need for a full phase action (plus OCV penalties). However, if he can eliminate the DCV penalty without taking an attack against his reduced DCV, and has a full phase available, what would possess him NOT to delay to DEX 1, fire, then abort? Assume he has a zero END attack for this purpose, and will hit, on average, three times with 5 rapid fire shots. He's getting 3 hits every 2 phases, rather than (at most) two hits every two phases. Now, ensure his reduced DCV is, in fact, a drawback, and suddenly this tactic is less desirable and it is better role playing to decide the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, so he will select another tactic. In other words, I agree with tesuji that "we reserve this maneuver for really dire situations" is just another form of metagaming, not role playing. [iLLUSTRATIVE ASIDE: In a D&D game I played in many years ago, we decided we would search the heart of a nearby forest - I forget why. The DM tried to dissuade us - we didn't know why. Finally, he said "Look, guys, there's a very old green dragon in the middle of the woods and you wouldn't stand a chance against it." OUT OF GAME REASON - METAGAMING APPROACH One player said "We've decided to go there. Unless we have an in-game reason not to, that is where we are going." That night, our cleric had a dream about the dragon at the center of the woods. He awoke convinced he had received a warning from his patron deity. We decided to go elsewhere. IN-GAME REASON: ROLE PLAYING APPROACH.

Wouldn't that be an entirely new system, possibly called "d02s"? [Of course, if Wizards can call their product "3rd Edition" with the magnitude of changes in that game...]

How do they know when phase 1 or 2 is about to end so they can avoid losing their phase 2/3 move? I'm inclined to follow the same "delay" rules set out above. If "Speed 8 Guy" delays, and the next guy to move acts at DEX 20, phase 3, it's now DEX 20, phase 3.