Hugh Neilson

It is 0 END. It is also Constant, so I use a single action (placing the ring on my, or someone else's finger), after which it continues to activate with no further to hit roll needed. It is also Uncontrolled - it just keeps going until it runs out of the END I placed in it. Since it has 0 END, it just keeps running =- until the ring is removed. As the target must wear the ring throughout, I cannot use the power on anyone else until he takes the ring off and I get it back. Could it be OIF? Sure. IAF? Can you remove it from an aware, resisting target as a single action? Seems Inaccessible to me, but if you want it easy to remove, make it Accessible.

To me, the game is not complete if I cannot make my own characters, nor are pregens required to make it complete. However, the "pregen as sample character" makes a lot of sense in general, and even more in Hero specifically. Of greater relevance, a "complete game" without those pregens needs to have something more than "here's a few hundred pages of build parts - make a character". You can present characteristics, skills and perks like we do now. But not Powers. You need something more akin to "Talents", pre-made special abilities with their price clearly labeled, and their mechanical components NOT provided. Put them online or in an appendix, but the players don't need that game design - they just need the game we used them to design. Or you could allow characters to buy Blasts or AP Blasts. Put the price down. Maybe that is "Blast, 5 points per 1d6" and "Armor Piercing Blast, 7.5 points per 1d6". Or maybe it is builds "Waves of Cold - the character emanates a field of frigidity from his hands in a triangle 12 meters to a side, with one point in any hex adjacent to the character, moving away from him. All within the cone take 6d6 normal damage, versus energy defense" with a fixed price; "Frostbolt - the character fires off a ray of cold, rolling OCV vs DCV to strike a single target. If he hits, the target takes 12d6 of normal damage, versus energy defense" - cost is 60 points. "Ice Slivers - the character projects a burst of sharp ice rolling OCV vs DCV to strike a single target. If he hits, the target takes 8d6 of armor pierceing damage, versus energy defense". Can you tinker with the builds? Sure - but AFTER you learn the basic rules of the game. Maybe our game has no powers with Penetrating or Autofire - then we don't include those mechanics. In Hero, you can do that - but not in our game. The key is that the abilities are presented in bite-size chunks, actual abilities, not spaghetti code ability design mechanics. All of this. Not, IMO, 100% essential, but at least 90%. They are not nearly as likely to play it if someone has to build the adventure from scratch. Maybe, however, the adventure(s) get sold separately but at least some small sample scenarios would ideally be included. Maybe they are enough to earn 10 xp, after which you write your own, or buy Book 1 of an Adventure Path, or separate adventure modules. This. Is. Crucial. We are not giving them tools to design a game. We used those tools (Hero System) to build the game they will play. Well, you sort of do. You need enough "setting" to place the adventures in, and let the players build a backstory in. What you don't need is an atlas and a complete world. You need enough pieces for the characters to exist, and those first adventures to happen. And no more! Well, now we are getting the product line. You can buy supplements with new powers and/or ways to alter existing powers. You can move to full Hero system design. But you DON'T have to - you can just keep playing with what you have. You can make your own adventures, and settings, and what have you. Or you can buy adventure books, setting books, enemies books, etc. I think you need to restrict the "complete game" to one genre/subgenre to present something they can play, not a toolbox from which they can build something to play. That also allows some greater depth in the (sub)genre chosen as we don't need a little bit of many (sub)genres. But Danger International would be a great starting point. This. This this this this this this this. THIS!!! And that is great - if they WANT to build their own game, with everything wide open. But many do not. For them, we provide what they want: We use the system to build the game so they can play it. Yes, we removed a ton of options. They don't want them - they want bounded options spelled out for them. If you don't, use the system and build the game you and your group want. But that's not what a lot of the market wants. So let them have what they want too - or someone else will, and that someone else will get their gaming dollars. How many supplements do D&D and similar games have? They want options, and lots of them. But they want the pre-built. So give them what they want! Both fine examples and maybe good templates for how much to include, and how much to leave out.

Why would that make them value skill levels over higher OCV/DCV and/or Power Defense?

This - 110%. The old V&V modules were great at including a "what if the heroes lose?" note so they could come back and make that last-ditch effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Initial failure was not prescribed and baked in - it was a possibility accounted for in the scenario.

I would say "NO". A Complete Game Setting would set the dials - which optional rules are, and are not in play. It would provide the accepted range for DCs, defenses, rDEF, SPD, CVs, etc. etc. It might even set some mechanics as off-limits, and others as "permitted in this game world". It would set the tone - is this a high-lethality game, a four-colour game where the Heroic Code is expected, or an exploration of complex ethical and moral issues in a world of Superhumans? It would likely also include pre-fab powers (spells for fantasy; superpowers for Supers; equipment for Pulp or Action; weird talents for Pulp, if weird talents are in play in THIS pulp game/setting; etc.). Pulp Hero is a genre. A Pulp Hero game would be more like Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes set in the 1930's, or Call of Cthulhu, or Gangsters in the 1920s, or Two Fisted Quasi-Supers like Doc Savage and The Shadow. It would not be the tools to build any one of these games, or even a combination thereof. It would be that game - complete, but without the trappings for any other game. Action Hero is a genre. A game could be a police drama, a war/soldiers game, an espionage game, etc. We could have games that cross lines - perhaps the players are normal human beings, but their foes are alien invaders infiltrating the earth a la "V", or mystical entities/monsters a la "Supernatural". Adventures and sample builds (PCs, enemies, even components like powers or spells) would be helpful, but not essential, components.

Besides, everyone knows the real reason all the Romulans have an Irish accent. But just in case, I will put it in spoiler tags.

Actually, how does one create a believable, consistent fictional accent? If you give all characters who speak Romulan an Irish accent, there is at least a consistent ability to recognize who hey are within the fiction (as long as we don't have a bunch of characters from Ireland who also have Irish accents). Would it be better if they all had American accents?

It's interesting that we have resisted paying points for normal equipment so strenuously, while d20 has morphed into the Wealth by Level model, making gear another resource paid for with a separate pool. In d20, you get to buy characteristics, skills, feats, class levels and gear (and I'm probably missing some). In Hero, you buy the same things, but you don't have to buy some from each pool - you are free to mix & match. Making gear cost points would work fine.

Unlike, say, being Immune to Heat and Cold providing no defense against heat and cold attacks? If you think your Autofire attack should be more likely to hit, buy some OCV bonuses for it. Maybe buy +5 OCV to Autofire, declines by +1 for each shot (and you now hit once for every three instead of every two your roll succeeds by). Sounds like the bullets sprayed down from his foot up to his head. You need to hold that weapon more firmly so the kickback doesn't cause that lift as you fire! Your approach works. Another would be to roll for a smaller region after each hit. Maybe hitting the foot means you roll a Low Shot location for the next hit instead of a standard roll. That makes a wide spray less likely, but still possible.

Sure, but for what type of game, and what type of play? Will this be a "Hack and Slash Champions" game where all scenes other than combat are just window dressing to get to the big combat scene, so having the suit broken will basically take the character out of play? Then it's a complication which should only occur rarely. Will it balance investigations and combat? Then there is a lot of use for the ability to be incorporeal and undetectable out of combat, even if having the suit destroyed in combat would be a huge problem, and we have a Power Suite and a Complication. Will this be a game focused on investigation and intrigue, only rarely venturing into combat? Then the ability to go anywhere, undetected, seems extremely powerful - it should cost a lot of points, if it is even allowed - it could be as bad as reliable Telepathy and Mind Scan in a murder mystery game.

Or we could use Transform, wounded character to character wounded one BOD less, 0 END, Persistent, only against target wearing magical ring... Or we could just not overthink it and go with: 1/2d6 Healing BOD (5 points), Standard Effect (2 CP = 1 BOD), Decreased Re-Use (1 turn, +1 1/2), 0 END (+1/2), Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2) 20 AP IIF Ring (-1/4), Extra Time (only happens PS 12; -1 1/4), Limited Range (target must be close enough to receive the ring, -1/4), Target must wear ring throughout (-3/4), 5 Real Points. The real question is whether the ability to restore any and all lost BOD for anyone, one at a time, out of combat, is acceptable to the GM. If it is, great, it's really not that powerful an effect for a Supers game. If not, then any build should be denied.

This is one of those items that does not translate well to the game. The writer can simply write Wildfire out until he gets a new suit. The only story I recall where he was out of the suit for a long time was his "joining LSH" story, which was essentially a Wildfire solo story in which he tried to work out what was going on and how to get at his suit, not a "four players, one of whom cannot interact with the real world" story.

I'd flip this around. If done as a complication, it should generally create challenges (not advantages or opportunities) for the character, and happen as frequently as the Complication points mandate. If the character pays for powers, I would expect to have him routinely leave the suit for scouting expeditions, as he has clearly paid for a means of doing so very effectively. In his first appearance, this seems very much like a Complication. In his second, he is able to scout around Legion HQ, determine who the villain is, and what he is up to, and then overcome the challenge of being separated from his suit to resolve the scenario. Which story does the player envision his Wildfire featuring in?

It seems like those would be a lot easier to hold if we cut that bit off, similar to the combo with a knife at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_knuckles. From the same source, the handle diffuses the impact to the wielder's hand, reducing the potential for hurting his fingers. Hero doesn't tend to consider that reciprocal damage.

If I buy 8d6 Drain, half to STR and half to CON, that costs 80 points. That's bad design, as I can buy 4d6 Drain STR and CON at the same time for 60. What if, instead, I buy 4d6 STR Drain, 1/2 END (50 AP) + 4d6 CON Drain so I get the same result at the same END cost (for 80 AP instead of 60)? If we apply Jointly Linked as -1/2 to the larger power (33 points) and -1/4 to the smaller (32 points), we get a 65 point cost for 4d6 STR Drain linked to 4d6 CON drain, at the same END cost. That seems to suggest that we should at least allow "Jointly Linked" as -1/2 to the greater power and -1/4 to the lesser power as a default, or that the price of affecting two game elements at the same time is much too low. If we allowed both powers "Jointly Linked" at -1/2, we would end up with 33 + 27 = 60 points. Maybe that is the answer (with GM judgement to be applied when one of the Linked powers is substantially lower cost than the other). That would suggest +1/2 is reasonable to affect two game elements at the same time (or to combine any two roughly equal attacks into one). By contrast, choosing between a 4d6 CON drain and a 4d6 STR drain could be done in a Multipower for 48 points, and costs 4 END. Let's make it x 1 1/2 END so the END cost is 6. Now it costs 32 (ignoring rounding issues) +1/2 to select any characteristic means 60 points, for the same 6 END. For 60 points, I can have 12.5 slots in that Multipower (40 + 12.5x4 = 50 for a total of 90/1.5 = 60). Paying for 12.5 slots seems like a reasonable compromise for "unlimited slots". If we made it a VPP, we would need a 27 point pool, a 20 point control cost, Cosmic (+2). Every power must be x 1 1/2 END, so that drops the control cost to 40 - even -1/2 for "only drains" (the book sets drains and aids at -1) would drop the control cost below 33, so the VPP model would be cheaper. Make that -1 1/2 and we get a 20 point control cost, so 47 points in total. A +1/4 for "choose one ability with the same SFX" or "choose one characteristic" would be 50 points and 5 END versus 47 points and 6 END. That seems to put +1/4 in the ballpark, at least.

While I can certainly see a Hulk or Thor-level STR destroying a mundane weapon after one or two uses, the same does not hold true for a "Legendarily strong human". Since when do brass knuckles have "a handle"? If they are damaged, it seems more likely like they would bend back, contorting into/around the user's fingers. Would it injure his hand? Unlikely to be more damaging than the impact of his mighty STR crashing his unshielded knuckles against an opponent.

Why wouldn't a 20 STR (or 30 STR) character doing a haymaker do more damage with those brass knuckles than without them? Doesn't Thor do more damage hitting with that hammer than without it? Why would the brass knuckles be different? And would Thor do LESS damage with the brass knuckles than without them? That is what happens if we enforce the doubling rule, isn't it?

I'm pretty sure 1e was +4 OCV and you hit again for every 2 you succeeded by, with 10 shots fired.

I would leave the builds without STR MIN. The damage cap linked to the weapon takes his STR MIN for the correct weapon into account.

While the weapon of opportunity would have an STR min, if used as a weapon in its own right, under the builds presented above, it is a Focus for an attack purchased entirely with points. The build for those attacks has no limitation for an STR min, and therefore should not have any STR min. Let's look at one of the builds as an example The character wields a Greatsword. Let's give him a 22 STR, and a Martial Arts maneuver that adds +2 DCs. If he uses the Greatsword normally, he can attack at +1 OCV for 3d6 KA damage (2d6 from the sword, +1 DC from STR, +2 MA DCs) at a cost of 2 END for STR. If he applies the maneuver above, he is capped at 3d6 KA, as that is the damage of the weapon being used. He has a 2 1/2d6 HKA, and 22 STR would normally allow him to add 4 DCs (even before the martial maneuver) for 4d6, but the limitation on the weapon precludes exceeding than 3d6 HKA. Using that Whirlwind costs him 5 END (45 AP for 2 1/2d6 AoE) + 1 END (15 STR to add 3DCs, pro rated down to increase 2 1/2 d6 to 3d6). Note that he no longer gets that +1 OCV< since the power build above does not have that bonus included. Now, let's assume he is under the influence of a powerful spell enhancing his STR to 50. He could do 4d6 KA with that Greatsword with 47 STR, for 40 END. But he can't exceed 3d6+1 if he uses Whirlwind Attack - he can add 2 DCs with 30 STR, but that's as high as he can go. If all he had was a dagger, which would cap out at 1d6+1 applying 16 STR, he could simply use 1d6+1 HKA, AoE for 3 END. If he prefers, he could use 1d6-1 for 1 END (15 AP) and tack on 15 STR for 1 END. But the "weapon max applies" precludes more than 1d6+1 assuming the doubling rule is in effect. If he had used the more typical "Naked advantage" approach, I would agree that the STR min is still relevant when the naked advantage is applied to his Greatsword, but here he is paying for the base KA, not just a +1/2 advantage to add on to the weapon he paid no points for. Of course, a naked advantage would not normally be allowed in a MP.

I'd say by RAW, his STR and MA would be pro rated for each of the attacks. The MP pays for 2 1/2d6 HKA, so 6 DCs added through STR and MA would get him to 3d6+1, and none of the MP slots have applied a STR min, so I would say as long as his Greatsword (with STR min, bonus DCs from STR and MA) can do 3d6+1, and he has 6 extra DCs to add from STR and MA (with no STR min), he can do 3d6+1 KA,

The solution starts on page 447, 6e v1, where the builds for the talents are spelled out. These are also pretty useful if you find the costs inappropriate - that may be because you would charge more for an advantage, or allow a higher limitation. I'm assuming the builds for the FH talents are similarly spelled out somewhere, though, and page count may have been at a premium.

I'd be more inclined to reject the naked advantage in a framework if the casters were not allowed to buy spells in a framework. I think a Martial with a Weapons Tricks multipower is a fair comparison to a Spells multipower, and the Weapon Tricks will often need naked advantages. Alternatively, I suppose you could build a slot of "2d6 HkA, Advantage, OIF Weapon of Opportunity, Damage cannot exceed normal damage for weapon used". That would force the weapon user to account for the full AP of the advantaged attack, like the spellcaster does. I'd want to see both in play and compare them, so I'd probably do a couple of builds under both approaches, pick the one that seems most appropriate and introduce it as a playtest to be assessed and, if it works poorly in play, we'll shift over. If my game included a lot of "metamagic" as well - spellcasters buying naked advantages outside the frameworks, used on spells within the frameworks, then I'd be even more inclined to give the warriors naked advantages in a framework. I like the "learned over time" approach a lot. In one game, I wanted to buy +1 SPD. Initially, I invested 3 points (+1 SPD, 8- Activation). Roll PS 12. If it succeeds, he gets the extra SPD next turn. I bought it up one activation roll at a time (even where the point cost did not change, and spending xp on other things in the meantime) until it hit 15-. Then I shelled out the 2 xp to get rid of the activation roll.

Because he is the only one close enough - or because his teammates can't hear him yell over the noise of the machinery. The one whose main purpose in life is to kick the kryptonite out of the way provide ongoing descriptions so Man-Bat is never disadvantaged due to his blindness.

Well, he DID make it to Spider-Man #39 before the Green Goblin hit him with a gas that dulled his Spidey-Sense. It's failed more than once over the years. That's not the player's job, although better players play their characters' weaknesses, not just their strengths. I have rarely seen a disadvantage which would not naturally come up in play - if it would not come up, it would not belong on the sheet. The GM gets to do a bit more work to involve Hunteds or DNPCs (but that is as simple as designing the story arcs, and watching for places where that DNPC could logically be during the various scenarios). A GM would have to include Chartreuse Copywritonite Meteors - if you take a Susceptibility to those, expect them to exist in the game world. If you take a Vulnerability to Solar-Powered Cold Beams fired by Green and Purple Froglike Martians at "Very Common", expect the campaign to have a title like "Invasion of the Green and Purple Froglike Martians wielding Solar-Powered Cold Weapons". If,, as a GM, I expect something is never going to come up, then it is not worth points. That goes for complications and disadvantages, but also for skills - KS: Jane Austen may well be free if I can't see it having any game relevance, just like you don't have to pay for being a redhead or having green eyes.