Hugh Neilson

Initial suggestion: limit the Advantage of charges to the advantahe of 0 END on the same power.

Originally posted by Arthur

In the programming world, we referred to that sort of thing as a "Band-Aid". Enough of those accumulate, and you have "cruft". In programming, it crashes constantly. In gaming, you wind up with a mass of special cases and house rules. Roughly the same effect.

OK, there are two issues here. One is the "band aid solution" question. Look at the rule book. Hero is very flexible and very balanced. That means complexity, by default. Look at all the adders, limitations, advantages, stop signs, danger signs, powers that can go in power frameworks, powers that can't, powers that can't but the GM should allow, powers that are perfectly legal but the GM should disallow, etc., etc., etc. This is why RPG's and computer games don't play the same - the computer doesn't balance - it arbitrates.

One more rule that charges cap at the equivalent Reduced END advantage (modified for any other variables, like Continuing, Recoverable, etc. charges) isn't going to crash the system any more than the need to assess whether a specific Limited Power is worth anything, or what it's worth.

House rules, however, are a concern. The game works a lot better when everyone knows the rules going in. Anyone remember Superhero 2044? Every superpower was pretty much built from scratch, so the GM and player had to create the mechanics. That level of "players finish the game design" is WHY you don't remember Superhero 2044! The point based supers games, with well defined powers and abilities, and costs, have survived. The "well, customize this power with your GM in the design process" games have not.

So I would suggest 6 ed (Sixth Iteration Design, or "SID") incorporate this structure, just like 5th Ed fixed a lot of the problems present in 4th Ed.

And, while he's never said it on the boards, I can't believe Steve doesn't read some of these threads, the FAQ, and rules questions, and say "If we ever accumulate enough changes to justify a new edition, I think we'll include that". I wouldn't be at all surprised to find there's a file at Hero with 5th Ed fully annotated with all the things to consider if a new edition is undertaken!

Originally posted by Arthur

It sucked, folks. Every time someone else GM'd, you practically had to learn a whole new game. The whole evolution of RPG design (at least up to Storyteller type "systems") was an attempt to make the game WORK as published.

While I agree with your comments, I challenge whether Hero is immune to this. Take the same character to half a dozen GM's and you will likely get half a dozen different answers. Perhaps one will not like certain powers (Find Weakness, Telepathy, Danger Sense and Variable Power Pools come to mind). Another may feel your limitations should be valued differently, or perhaps that your disadvantages are mispriced. Another may feel your Elemental Control is not appropriate. Look at the discussions on this board - all of these items are represented.

And this is before considering campaign limits on DC, active points, defenses, skill rolls, etc. etc. etc.

Assume a character possesses the ability to Summon one specific person. Let's say he's a young wizard who can Summon the spirit of his departed mentor (the necromancy option presented in FREd).

He pays a +1 advantage for Summoning a Specific Being. Presumably, he also pays for his mentor to be Amicable, but I guess that depends on the relationship.

Because he can summon only that one specific spirit, and not "Spirits of the Dead" in general, it seems reasonable the character should get a limitation. After all, he can't talk to his mentor, find out he doesn't know the answer and summon up a different spirit who does. And if something has happened to the one person he can summon, he gets no benefit from these points at all. However, there is no limitation noted in the book, and this one seems pretty obvious.

Is it intended that summoning a single specific being is a +1 advantage over the ability to summon random creatures from a pool, or does the +1 advantage actually represent a character who can select ANY one specific being (eg. Summo the King of Valdoria, expecting King Arkon, but he has been deposed, so start again and Summon Arkon, former King of Valdoria), with a limitation applied if the character's Summon is restricted to one (or more) specific individuals?

Steve, once you provide the rules answer, maybe you can move this to the Discussion board to talk about how the magnitude of the limitation should be (your comments would also be appreciated).

Originally posted by GamePhil

Of course. Besides, you wait until they rely on it too much...

 

The only real difference is that the reasonable person you explain these possibilities to. The unreasonable one, you spring it on without warning.

AHhhh...GM Philosophy.

Try this one. Get the group together, or email them. Tell them someone in the group (no names) wants to buy an Aid with a very low fade rate and has pointed out that he can increase stats for the whole group before any encounter and, since it fades in days, they basically are always at that stat level.

Ask whether THEY think this character should be allowed. And add in "Of course, whatever we decide on the legality of this power also applies to NPC's." And stick to it.

The unreasonable ones are easy to handle. You can move the game location or time and not tell him/her. You can simply give all the villains an offsetting advantage (eg. +10 OCV or 1 hex area, only vs "Impossible to Hit Man"; +5DC, only vs "Unreasonably High Defenses Man") or otherwise offset his unreasonable spending.

A reasonable player will say "OK, I see the issue and I'll bring him into line with the campaign norm." Unreasonable ones? Get rid of them or smack them down.

Oh, and the answer to "Low Fade Rate Man", should he choose to be unreasonable? How about an opponent team with a character with Mind Scan (to find him) and Mind Control. Now rent the sucker out to the higest bidding villain team.

Originally posted by Toadmaster

As far as the 0 end vs 1000 charges the advantage I see to 0 End is that assuming the real weapon lim is used the character is limited in how much ammo is carried but can be assumed to scavenge ammo from similar weapons to explain reloading, while my understanding of charges, allowing fairly easy reloads is frowned on.

The rules suggest reducing the value of the limitation if the charges are especially easy to recover, or increasing it if they are especially difficult. So, I think the ability to recharge whenever you can return to base and scavenge shells from other tanks is worth...let's say four lines up the chart. Which is still a +1 advantage starting at with 1,000 charges.

Re: Fun with Charges

Originally posted by Gary

Buy 1 google Charges that Never Recover. You get a -1 net limitation on every single power purchased, and you never ever have to worry about End again.

 

Oddly enough when I asked this question to Steve, he never outright banned this construct.

Ummm...page 179 FREd - the rule against this is in the left column, in a rather large font, prefaced by "All limitations are governed by a very simple rule:"

So, I would have to rule that you do not receive the -2 limitation, but you still have the +1 advantage for having over 125 charges. Guess you should have bought 0 END instead

Originally posted by Arthur

Then why bother with the points at all?

 

60 2d RKA; 250c

vs.

45 2d RKA; 0 END.

 

So an infinite number of shots is cheaper than 250 shots. Something is wrong.

Easily made right - cap charges at +1/2 advantage, +1 for autofire. Fixed!

Another thought: how many points are these characters spending on FW? At -2 for each successive roll, getting an opponent of (say) 32 DEF down to 1 needs a lot of points to work consistently. One miss, no more chances.

To get 11- on that 5th roll, with a related group of attacks (martial maneuvers) is 40 points, and the odds of 5 successes still isn't good.

What if his opponent spent that many points on additional EB dice? [Or additional OCV with his EB - let's see the Martial Artist dodge an OCV 30 (base 10 + 20 2 point levels) EB at "campaign standard" damage.

While you're standing around looking, what's your opponent doing? If he has FW, probably sizing you up as well. If not, maybe he might strike at you (or just move away - encounter over, so all existing FW effects are gone at the start of the next encounter).

Works great if you can size up the opposition for a turn or so without being noticed, but how often should that happen? And if you just stand there sizing up the Brick, why doesn't he grab a hunk of pavement and wrap it around you (1 hex area grab) or just smack you away (knockback and 1 hex area concrete slab). So much for Joe Martial Artist!

Missed one! Missile Deflection became a power instead of a skill (for all those characters who needed a focus or didn't, and to break it up to "thrown/bullets/energy beams".

[And I'm going from a "preview article" from Different Worlds #27, so I don't have the books in front of me, but I think Shrinking stayed 10 points throughout.]

1st Ed to 2nd Ed had lots of differences. They lost colour art on the cover, got a box and some dice, threw in a map...

Mechanics? OH YEAH!

- Objects (and entangles) got defenses

- Spreading energy blasts was introduced

- bonus damage to HKA's was capped at the DC for the killing attack,

- Active points in a multipower slot were limted to the pool (yes, in 1st Ed I could put lots of limits on and get 120 Active Points from a 40 pt pool)

- Stacking multipowers and elemental controls became illegal (VPP's - oh, they didn't come along until much later)

- Entangles only cost END to throw, not for every phase they stayed up!

- Force Wall became the "wall" we see today

- Drains and Transfers could be applied to POWERS, not just characteristics (there were no other adjustment powers at the time)

- Hardened Defenses were introduced to defend against Armor Piercing (penetrating>? Didn't exist yet)

- Berserk was modified so "in combat" was no longer automatically included (Enraged? What's that?)

- Susceptibilities could be STUN only!

- Competent DNPC's got 50 points (instead of 20)

Ah yes...memories

Hard to believe that was over 20 years ago!

Oh, and the rule book was HUGE - 80 pages, up from 64 pages in 1st Edition (games have changed a bit over the years, haven't they?).

Originally posted by lemming

That they do, but it got to the point where everyone needed 10-20 LoW in order not to have a 1 pd against some martial artists.

 

One of Sam Bell's villians, Stalker, a rather high end martial artist used to always have a high FW roll. Sam replaced it with the illegal AVLD does body. The defense: 1

 

Since she would normally get people down to 1 anyway, it wasn't as unbalancing as it looks on paper. Plus all the bricks had it in for her. If she attacked anyone, there was usually a large object then heading toward her hex.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but how long did these characters just stand around getting Weakness found? Every roll is a 1/2 phase action.

If you want to get around it, buy an Invisible force field - he can't find a weakness if he can't see the Defense. Or buy Damage Reduction instead - no FW for that!

Increased knockback would be the norm. I suppose you could buy the attack "no knockback" and link it to STR X Telekinesis, only throws back target". Depends on the distance you're looking for.

Originally posted by GamePhil

The Extra Limbs you site *are* Always On, they just don't get the Limitation because there is no drawback to not being able to turn them off. An octopus can't makes its tentacles disappear, but it's hardly hampered by them.

Star Hero may be different, but to me the fact your extra limbs are always there has a drawback - you're likely to be remembered ("The guy with 8 arms, remember?")

The character should either be entitled to the always on limitation, or Distinctive Features ("He had eight arms!").

Originally posted by MarkusDark

The reduction in mass is also simple enough. Half of 1/8 is 1/16. I actually have never played in a game where the weight of a shrinking character came into necessity but even if it did, I would imagine that it would be no harder to divide by 16 as it would be to divide by 8.{/B]

Ummm...no .

1/16 per level is a faster weight reduction. Halving the rate of descent would mean each leven reduces your mass to about 35% of the prior level (.35 x .35 = .1225, about the .125 of 1/8).

And three levels of Growth would be offset by one level of shrinking - three levels of Growth doubles your height and octuples your mass. One level of shrinking halves height and reduces mass to 1/8. [Hmmm...if I buy 3 levels of growth with a Linked level of shrinking, I get all the stat bonuses and stay the same height...]

You can buy half an EB die for 3 points, and 1/3 of a KA die for 5 points. If you want to buy half levels of shrinking, go ahead. Just assume you get half of anything evenly divisible by two, and round anything not evenly divisible against the character (so +2" knockback).

Re: Re: Inherent vs. Always On

Originally posted by MisterVimes

Inherent powers cannot be suppressed or dispelled since they are a natural function. I wouldn't allow always on in that case unless there was a disadvantage to it.

I believe a power must be "always on" in order to permit purchase of "inherent". Whether you get a limitation would, of course, depend on whether there's a drawback, but I can't think of many powers where there is no drawback to the inability to shut it down.

So, how many characters have purchased Inherent life support? Could be mighty painful if it gets suppressed/dispelled...

Originally posted by JSenecal

I agree. Someone with code against killing might have a very large killing attack, they just won't use it against anything alive.

Why do these discussions always focus on killing attacks? A 1d6 KA won't bring a normal person to dying in one shot. A 15d6 EB (or punch) will. Which one should the CvK hero use (assume they're both beam effects, his only ranged option, and the opponent is about to blow up the full orphanage).

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

That sounds a little like you are rubbing the players noses in the tone of the setting. Were I playing I would make a goon stopper power, like a:

 

Chumpdrop: 3d6 NND (Defense is having more than 250 character points) (+1) Radius (+1) [selective or Personal Immunity depending on SFX] (+1/4) 0 END (+1/2), Full Phase (-1/2) [Gestures or Incantations or Restrainable by other than Grabs depending on SFX] (-1/4) No Range (-1/2) 15 * 3.75 = 56.25 / 2.25 = 25 Real Cost, and worth every penny.

Just throw an Entangle (DEF twice BOD) with Radius, extended in the old Multipower. No BOD, and show me the agent that can get out of a decent entangle without his OAF's. Call it 1d6 3 DEF Entangle, 8" radius (2x extended). 20 pts x 2.5 = 50. [Make that BOD standard effect]

Higher active points = more entangle, and a bigger radius, but even at 50 points, this holds those pesky normals for a phase or two (and you have WAY more phases than they do to do it again).

The example in "followers" makes it pretty clear - 1/5 of the follower's base points (before disad's) assuming he has less base points than you do.

Originally posted by dbsousa

as a GM I would ask the player to define this very clearly, to trim the cheese from the edges...

 

Power only affects those who are guilty: advantage

Overall, I think the character gets a big benefit here, and this would be more destructive than Telepathy for mystery type scenarios. "Oh, just get all the suspects in a room and I'll slash them with my sword - it can only affect guilty people"

I'd be inclined to require the character to purchase a Detect to reflect the sword's ability to detect the "guilty/evil/what have you". If the only way to tell is to take a swing on them, there's a limitation there (Gestures for sure, at a minimum).

Even so, I think the advantages and drawbacks of the attack power only hitting those who are truly "guilty" probably balance out at best and may even carry an advantage (how often do you use your attack powers against the "innocent" - sometimes, since hero vs hero conflict is definitely a comic book standard, and even two good guys can have conflicting views; isn't it nice that they won't affect your teammates if you roll an 18 or get mind controlled)

OOPS! posted to Healing thread this AM!

Getting back to the original question (BALO: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE GARGOYLE NOW)

Am I the only one who thinks this looks WAY too expensive? Guys, we've missed the boat completely here!

Buy 1 BOD healing (regeneration) which only works when he's turned to stone. He'll be rock for hours, and one hour contains 300 turns - more than enough, I would expect, to recover all BOD lost. You could even take a greater Increased Time and/or, if your GM permits, +2 advantage on "all stats below starting max".

I'd allow the "all stats", but as you've already seen, I think adjustment powers don't need all the watering down they've received. Your GM may be on the other side of the fence. However, I don't see what you want as being abusive, and if your GM also doesn't, I can't see him wanting to make it imnpossible or cost-prohibitive.

Originally posted by BenKimball

Great ideas, guys.

 

Also, I do see BouncyMan being vulnerable to pointy objects. I don't think he'd bounce out of a spiked pit, for example; I think he'd pop. Maybe Vulnerability: 2x BODY to physical attacks with sharp objects? Or could I generalize that to 2x BODY from killing attacks? (Wow, that's dangerous.)

 

Just don't make (all of) your PD resistant or hardened.

Originally posted by zornwil

I had an NPC a long time ago (in fact I think I should revive him) who was this dual-personality liberal defense attorney in one guise (yeah, cliche, I know) and in his other personality was the Grim Reaper, a deadly assassin of the evil. He had this amulet that would glow on a 14/less for bad guys. If it glowed, he chopped them with a massive supernatural killing attack, otherwise he could only do slight damage. If it glowed, furthermore, he was COMPELLED to kill, whereas if it did not he was compelled NOT to kill.

Wasn't there a character in Excalibur who had magic swords that would pass right through the innocent without harming them? Who's brave enough to request a limitation for an attack power that "Only works on the guilty"?

Hey there IS a limit - imagine battling against your mind controlled teammates...

Re: How to build BouncyMan?

Originally posted by BenKimball

Wow, this post got long. Sorry about that. To recap: (1) It's really hard to hurt BouncyMan with a physical attack,

Lots of PD and/or damage reduction (maybe not resistant - will BouncyMan pop?)

(2) BouncyMan can move very quickly when bouncing and can survive a fall from any height,

Consider whether his move should be leaping or running. Short bounces that permit him to corner woud be better represented as running.

"Survive the fall" could be as easy as Gliding - only prevents falling damage, or limited flight. Depending on how much you've boosted his PD and leaping, it may not even be an issue (but remember the leap only works if he's not stunned/ko'd to begin with).

and (3) BouncyMan loves to bounce off of you and knock you around.

I buy into the Move Through (he's already got tons of PD). Maybe buy his STR double knockback (but I'd make you advnatage the move through DC's as well). Hmmm...what about a damage shield that only does Knockback (maybe including extra knockbak) and only acts if you do a move through or someone else does a similar attack on you? That way, anyone who does a move through on BouncyMan is also in for a suprise.

Maybe some Knockback resistance as well - "He just stays put, but YOU take 15" Knockback"

Originally posted by Insaniac99

the closest thing i can find is page 124 STR Doesn't add -1/2

 

I'd say that makes STR add a +1/2 advantage.

Or extrapolate from RKA and HKA - they cost the same, and the only difference is RKA has range (+1/2) and HKA allows STR to add to damage, so should be the same price.