Hugh Neilson

Because, with 3 Resistant Defenses, she is pretty easy to kill with a gun. What tactics do you think she would logically use in this scenario? Because that would provide the same +3 DCV she received from assigning her skill levels to DCV, and she cannot attack while dodging, so she cannot use her Electric Attack skill levels and Dodge at the same time. I assume because she was so confident she could mop the floor with a squad of SWAT agents. If she decided to flee, she might escape. Will fleeing the scene be her usual approach to combat? A valid question - how far apart are the cops standing? How many dice do you want to sacrifice? 8d6 vs 5 or 10 defenses will at least STUN an average member of this SWAT team. Actually, spreading for a lot of area would pretty much duplicate that Champs Electrique, further highlighting its lack of utility. As indicated above, they are "Experienced/Tough Cops" as defined in a Hero product. I believe they have OCV 5 (so not Legendary) and +1 OCV with their guns, judging by the description. Few of those hits were just barely, or only by one, so dropping their OCV by 1 or 2 might drag it out a bit more, but will not likely change the outcome.

So, how many GMs in a 5e or 4e game would allow my Archer Elf*? He spends 90 points on a 30 DEX. 10 OCV and DCV, and 4 SPD, out of the gate. He has 60 points left for weapon familiarities, some other stats skills, etc. and maybe an Archery Trick or two. He can boost a lot of those with xp later, of course. Or Halfling. Or, for Duke, anthropomorphic tree frog. Actually, forget it - he'll have a 20 DEX naturally, +10 DEX, No Figured (-1/2), not if he ceases to venerate the Great God of Elven Archers/Elvish Slingers/ Tree Frogs (-0 limitation). Since limited characteristics don't attract NCM, he only pays 60. He can invest 10 into +1 SPD to get that 4 SPD back. That leaves 20 more to spend as he sees fit. Maybe another +2 SPD, not if he ceases to venerate the Great God of Elven Archers (-0 limitation)? Nope, no problems with the NCM rules...

So how many points should my Fighter get for "double cost to buy spells"? Those spells are outside his concept, so he should be rewarded by sticking to it, right? And my Wizard will never buy is massively handicapped by a double cost for any Martial Arts he buys. How many points is that worth? Actually, they want to stay even more in concept - how many more points for those abilities costing 3x, 4x or 5x the normal cost if they should decide to invest in them? Oh, and how much does it cost to remove the NCM limit entirely (and not have to pay double for anything)? How much to just bump the limit by 50% (to 30 Primary Stats)?

Where a base level of NCM is imposed, and other levels can be taken as a complication, the characters I have seen take such complications have no, or very few, stats above their revised "maximum". The Age complication was the big one historically, often taken by spellcasters to have a higher INT limit and lower physical stat limits (which they rarely if ever exceeded). Have you seen PCs with the 5 or 10 point Age complication spending 5-10 points on doubled stat costs to exceed their NCM limit?

A ranged attack against a target within 8 meters suffers no penalty for range. 9 - 16 meters results in a -2 penalty; 17-32 meters is a -4 penalty; and so on (each doubling imposing a further -2 OCV penalty). Characters with 8 OCV, 8 DCV, a few (2 or 3) skill levels with their primary attack and 5-6 SPD are pretty standard for a 400 point Supers game (flowing from the sample characters in 6e Vol 2). Damage of 10 - 12d6 and defenses around 20 (about half resistant) are also pretty standard, with CON around 23 - 30. As an average 12d6 hit will roll 42 STUN, CON + DEF = 43+ is pretty standard to avoid being Stunned by a typical hit.

Tell you what, build a character on 175 points (Standard Heroic) under that model. If we give you 25 points for those maxima (maximum points per complication for Standard Heroic), or even 50 (total complications for Standard Heroic), will that make it a playable character? He has already saved 85 points by selling his stats back to those starting levels. I guess he'll need a spell or magic item to restore his stats (at least those he relies on in play). What actually happens in real games is that players look at the stats they want the character to have. Unless all, or virtually all, will be under the NCM limit they can take as a complication, they do not take that complication. I am speculating that this template comes with some offsetting advantages. However, an elderly Wizard who attacks and defends with magic spells could be quite all right within these parameters. So, to flip it around, how many points should that Wizard get for free because his character design already fits within those parameters (and has saved him 5 points from selling back 3 STR and 2m Swimming already)?

I echo the comment that your defenses will leave you Stunned or KOd far more often than you likely want, or expect. Block is not going to help much. A 5 SPD is typical in most Supers games – very few Supers drop to a 4, and a significant portion have a 6. More to the point, they have OCVs in the 8 – 10 range, so you need a pretty good roll to Block with a 6 OCV. Your 6 DCV means you will get hit by the typical attack. You’re investing 24 points in Champ Electrique, which will not be good for much. Your defenses are extremely low and, ignoring your special electrical resistance, you would only take 2 STUN from this. A higher-powered version as a multipower slot may be a better idea. You describe combat style of using distance, but your OCV is already low, so you can’t afford range modifiers. As well, your movement rate is not going to let you keep a significant distance, especially when it is tiring (double END). If you plan to use the motorcycle in combat, I’d probably align its SPD with yours. I’m not sure why it needs a 7 OCV. A lot depends on the nature of the game. The motorcycle will work better if the campaign is in a single city than if it is globetrotting. As well, comments on CV, defenses, SPD, etc. are pretty useless in a vacuum. I, and I think others, are assuming "standard 400 point Supers".

Circling back to the "complete game", I know one comic/game store ordered Champions based on the crossover potential of comics and games, not realizing the buyers would not have a game they could play in that big, beautiful book. After watching that, and the Villains books, sit on the shelf month after month, they never stocked another Hero product.

The practical answer, to me, is that "out of combat" is the most important phrase here. Who cares if it takes 6 seconds or 60 out of combat? If we are out of combat and the target is unable to offer much in the way of resistance, the focus can be removed by pretty much anyone in a trivial amount of time. You can still attack the focus. In a game with impairing and disabling wounds, you can attack the extremity on which the focus is worn, a la Gollum biting off Frodo's finger. In the 75+ years of publication of various Green Lanterns, how often has his ring been removed from him in combat?

I'm not sold that the goal was, or should be, significant differences between our Powered by Hero game and the Hero rules. This is doubly so with Brian's stated goal to get them interested enough in the source code to buy the Hero System. This makes sense to me, as it only pares away some of the Teleport rules, but does not change them. Making movement "per turn divided by SPD" means a major disconnect when our Action Hero group buys the 2 volumes of source code. Sure. Because it is a staple of horror movies that the solution to a ghost is a bigger gun. I have an even easier answer for Action Hero - it does not need Desolid at all. Let me suggest what was actually stupid. The stupid GM reading the character sheet, seeing the description Immune to Fire with the desolid build, stupidly not discussing that build with the player, but rather letting him pay the points for a build the GM considered not to achieve the desired result, then even more stupidly building an adversary specifically to override the player's concept. NOTE: I am charitably assuming stupidity here. It could be that the GM is not stupid, but is instead deliberately setting out to show the player who the boss is, and you don't get to rely on your character concept working as planned, or me telling you I am going to override your concept, in advance. That's a different type of stupid most commonly described with reference to the end result of the digestive system. Worse, the player is likely to blame the failure to obtain "the character he imagined" as a failing of the Hero System, not an incompetent or adversarial GM. To a lot of the other elements, I think we can easily remove AP, Penetrating, Hardened, etc. Not so gung ho about merging PD and ED. Removal of martial arts? No issue. Making them "something else"? Less enthusiastic. That's not to say we could not redesign elements for our "Powered by Hero Game", but that it's not a great idea if the goal is to draw them into the big overall system. If we are making that kind of major change, it also needs a sidebar or similar to tell experienced Hero gamers we're deviating from the standard. One of the biggest Champions competitors did a great job modifying the whole d20 damage system, so massive changes can work. But recognize that they are massive changes which will create compatability issues with the Hero System overall.

That's only two measley books. We need the full Encyclopedia. Bring on the 48-volume 7th Ed

Maybe that should be a Hero Selling Point - don't want to wait for the Splatbook that finally provides the character option you want? Buy the Hero Toolkit and make the character options you want.

Emphasis added. New gamers (and experienced gamers) are picking up other Supers games, so this clearly is a model that can sell. If they want to create more, then there is the Toolkit available.

Why do the horses get singled out? Most fantasy games also feature: - armor, weaponry and other gear than never needs cleaning or maintenance; - you can just buy arrows and other weapons anywhere (clothes for that matter); - all people are entitled to bear arms; - no issues with food quality or hygiene (that wasn't just horse pee and poop in the road); ad infinitum We gloss over a lot of the unpleasant realities of history when we game.

The closest we get in Hero as a whole is "cinematic reality". Hero is not a game, but a toolkit to design a game. As such, it has many choices of options which can create games with specific parameters and objectives. In that regard, some options can be tagged to specific game objectives.

OK - my confusion was from a post above, but I think it confused "cost of the levels" versus "difference between levels and an 8 OCV and DCV". The problem (rules issue, not your issue) is that the DCV levels are nonpersistent. Given that, there should be a minor cost savings, at the -1/4 level. I agree on the OCV has savings. The character is giving up some options, although he gains others (those 3 point levels can be used for damage or DCV). Overall, he should spend 32 for the DCV levels - 15 for DCV sellback = 17 versus 25 for an 8 DCV - 8 points saved (which will bite him on occasions when he has 0 DCV instead of 8 or, more likely, 4). And 24 for the maneuvers levels - 15 for OCV sellback = 9 versus 25 for an 8 OCV - 16 points saved for basically removing any other combat maneuver from his repertoire. My question would be why he is so far below human norm if he, say, throws a rock (or does not have time to place his DCV levels). Not "why does it not matter to the character", but "what SFX justify this shortfall from human norm".

I would say those strong views are an excellent reason for a "what is this game about?" discussion. Is it a game where the dice rule over all? Is it one featuring mechanics which permit players, the GM or both to override the dice on occasion? Or is the GM expected to rule with an iron fist, fudge if considered appropriate or let the dice fall where they may, at his personal whim? That's just as important as "grim, gritty and realistic" vs "cinematic reality" vs "high fantasy". What is this game all about? [Actually, maybe a quick paragraph on "what is this discussion thread all about" would also not be a bad idea ]

This - the recognition that the issue is entirely about personal preference, not a "right and wrong way to play" - is key. To me, this also has to be limited. To me, the player is obliged to bring a character suited to the game. Some examples: - "My character's goal is to run a peaceful tea shoppe. He is not interested in adventure of any kind." It is not the job of the other players, or the GM, to entice your character from his secure tea shoppe into an adventuring life. Your character can sit in his tea shoppe. Maybe every few minutes we will even note that a new customer just ordered the chamomille blend. But don't bitch about being bored while the other players play the adventure your character chose to sit out. - Ignoring the adventure hooks. "No, I don't want to stick around and see what the mysterious stranger has to say. My character goes upstairs to bed." "Rather than deal with those ruins outside town, and the mysterious lights every night, let's book passage on a ship sailing to far-distant shores." Go ahead. But accept that this may mean the game consists of a boring travelogue while, in the meantime, the town you started in is destroyed, the Dark Lord builds his power, and one day the game just ends as the world is destroyed by the threat you decided was not worthy of your time. It can be a tough balance. I had a Patriotic Boy Scout character some years back, and some sessions in, the players were recruited for some black ops plot. Not something my character would be a participant in, so he was prepared to step back. That was not the game as presented, nor was it the game for which this character was designed. The GM revised the premise a bit to get a "legitimate authority" angle to the recruitment. This is a great example of how personal preferences vary. "Was my victory earned by good play, skill and even lucky die rolls, or handed to me by a GM who fudged the outcome?" Some players don't care, others do. And one day we start the game with "your characters don't wake up that morning because the world was destroyed last night". Maybe we should have investigated one of those three dozen plot threads...still, we had the highest-rated Tea Shoppe on seventeed online platforms before the world ended! Control issues can exist on both sides. The player who insists on playing a character inappropriate to the game is one example. In a game where the GM rules over all, there will be no Hero Point mechanics. A game wanting a different division of agency and control may well use such a mechanic to divide that authority. Taken to the extreme (the same extreme, I suggest, as "if we have Hero Points, the players can auto-succeed at anything and override the entire game"), this says "your characters live or die at the whims of the GM - maybe he spares you a TPK you earned, or maybe your hard-won victory turns into a TPK". At one extreme, we have a story written by one or more players. At the other, we have a story written by the GM, in which each PC is expected to play their scripted part (but you can ad lib in non-crucial elements of your role). Between those polar opposites rests a lot of possible divisions of authority and agency.

It is Inaccessible. It cannot be removed while the owner actively opposes that removal. It can be removed from a helpless opponent, in no more than one turn. If that opponent is handcuffed, but still clenching a fist, it might take a turn to pry his fingers open and get the ring off. If he is unconcious, it may well take less time. Unless we want to move limitations (or advantages) to six decimal places, there will be gradations within the same limitation (or advantage) value. Of course, then rounding will result in 748 charges costing no less than 753 charges, so we will have to move CP to eight decimal places. That will certainly help with the "Hero is too math-intensive" issue It is worth less than Accessible and more than Not a Focus at All. Iron Man's armor cannot be removed in a turn or so. It is not a Focus at all. It is OIHID. Could it be removed, with the right equipment and enough time? Sure. But not quickly enough to make it a Focus, even an Inaccessible focus. You put special notes to indicate the ability - special effects and all - which the mechanics are intended to simulate. The mechanic is "OIF". The special effect is "ring". I guess this is why we need the Encyclopedia Heroica, so that we can explain more precisely how every possible corner case functions in the game, and provide every detailed issue, however minute, fully spelled out. The ring cannot simply be snatched away in combat, so it is not accessible. It can be removed in one turn if the target is defenseless. It can also be removed in less than one turn if the target is defenseless. If you play with Impairing and Disabling wounds, it could also be removed if the character's hand is severed. None of these change the fact that the ring is not accessible (it cannot be snatched away in combat) but is inaccessible (it can be removed in a turn if the target is defenseless). If it can be removed in 9 seconds instead of 12, it remains inaccessible - it still cannot be snatched away in combat. I would guess that, somewhere in CC, there is a discussion of points between the limits of various advantages and limitations. I know one of Derek's goals when he wrote it was to state such general issues once, not repeat variations on the theme numerous times in numerous places.

The change to delayed return rate had nothing to do with changes to characteristic costs. [I don't believe they had anything to do with other changes to adjustment powers either, other than adding some characteristics to the "costs double to adjust" pool, but I am certain on delayed return rate.] Delayed Return Rate from a per turn recovery to per minute basically means "for the rest of the combat", so that was costed higher to reflect its greater utility over longer timeframes.

Autofire. Multiple attack. By RAW, that needs to be an "all combat" skill level to get DCV against all types of attacks - not sure how you are getting a 2 point net cost. 4 points for Nonpersistent DCV seems like it would be more appropriate. 5e set the cost of an "All DCV" skill level at 5 points, IIRC.

Are you OK with the weapons list in a typical RPG? These tend to span many centuries, and often many cultures, as well. It can be toughest to suspend disbelief in the areas one has the greatest expertise in. To a couple of others, I often question why we include word-play riddles. The characters are not speaking modern English, are they? By the same token, those Mesmers are likely pronounced completely different in the Common Tongue of some magical fantasy world.

The rules indicate that the die roll in question failed. Revising that ignores or modifies the result of the die role. It is quite consistent with the role of judge and storyteller. This does not change the fact that it is fudging the rules which determine the result of a player's action in game. That does not mean it is "bad" or "good" for the game. Some players may feel that this override of 'G' in favour of 'RP' is appropriate. Others may feel it cheapens any victory gained through planning, strategy, tactics and good die rolls. That is no different than whether a hero points/game metacurrency mechanic is "bad" or "good" for the game. It is different, in that the metacurrency is presumably part of the rules of the game, where changing the results of the dice as rolled is an override of those rules. Looking specifically at Hero, "an 18 always fails" is one of the rare rules that don't say "unless the GM rules otherwise", or "subject to common sense, dramatic sense and game balance" or something similar.

Until we move to a system where fees for medical services are negotiated with the medical system as a whole - all the hospitals, not just one hospital. The only option the insurance company has is a refusal to cover (or higher premiums) for those living in that region. The government has a few more options. The reality is that the "free market" assumes "perfect competition". When barriers to entry or other "imperfect economic systems" create unequal bargaining power, the "free market" theory fails. Tat is the cause of government regulation, or even government management, of many areas.

That is another form of fudging, simply one which the GM applies rather than the players using some in-game metacurrency. "Turning failure into success" should not be a freebie. After much great planning and gaming, we have the perfect setup to prevent Mechanon's Kill All the Humans Maguffin. Hawkeye is in place, braced and set, makes that perfect shot and...rolls an 18. So we can depressingly put all the character sheets in the binders, their tales only half told. Or we can figure out a way to Fail Forward. Maybe that's a Hero Point. Maybe it's just a GM call. I'd look for an option to succeed, but not a perfect success, perhaps one which grants Mechanon new options ("an arc of power from the antenna strikes Mechanon - he glows brightly...then vanishes"), or even more power, or some such, ideally drawn from prior campaign events. The danger is defeated for today, but a true victory will require further action by the heroes. Again, another way to fudge. If you change the odds of hitting or the amount of damage, how does that make rolling them in the open any more transparent? A lot of these examples are simply placing the responsibility for preserving the narrative in the hands of the GM, rather than allowing the players some of that agency. Did someone mention "writing a story" earlier? I know many players would consider being scripted by the GM to be in that vein. Sometimes, some on the fly adjustment (aka fudging) is necessary to manage the game.