Hugh Neilson

Uphill all the way...BOTH ways!

Uphill all the way...BOTH ways!

In the real world, I am 100% with you.  In a superheroic world, then I think I need to be as open to universal attractiveness as I am to flight, force fields, invisibility and pre-cognition.
 
I am presuming that you understand I am not in the Bring back COM caucus.  I mean I have publicly declared that i would get rid of all non-game-mechanical characteristics! 🕵️‍♂️

You lost whatever benefit +10 COM provided, and the same benefit that buying an additional 10 COM would generate.  But negatives became positives, which was an oddity.
 
 
Being hideously ugly could be distinctive features - acting to your detriment. It could be Striking Appearance - acting to your benefit.  It could be both, or it could have no in-game effect and be neither.
 
Being supernaturally beautiful has all the same possibilities.
 
In these cases, appearance is merely the SFX for a game mechanic.  If there is no mechanic behind it, there are no points spent or gained.  You can be a redhead for free.  You can be a stunning redhead with a drop-dead gorgeous face and figure for free.  If, however, people notice and remember you, or even lust after you and seek to hunt you down and imprison you for their own, it is a complication/disadvantage.  If it allows you to wrap people around your little finger, then it is Striking Appearance, a benefit you pay for.  Maybe it's even Mind Control.
 
The appearance itself is just a special effect for what you want that appearance to do, in-game.

Are you saying you will believe a man can fly and shoot lightning from his fingers but not be universally attractive?

That was my initial thought as well - that it looked like END may simply not be in use, so it's not being tracked.  But it was on the sheet, so I assumed that it was in use.
 
I'm a bit confused that END was not a big factor, just something tracked for no real purpose unless an END drain was used.  If one is used, or a  character is KOd and recovers also adds an END element. A sudden need to introduce a brand-new mechanic in mid-combat seems like an issue.  Not having END costs readily available at that point seems even more problematic.
 
Also, it looks like it would be a factor if it were not assumed away.
 
As well, both of Wasp's blasts are annotated "Autofire (Up to 3 shots). I questioned earlier whether it was intended that both the 10d6 attack and the 8d6 Stun Only attack be Autofire, as there seemed to be little reason to use the slightly smaller attack.
 
With a 6 SPD and 42 END, I'm not sure how autofire attacks that cost 12 or 15 END per use was "not a big deal", even before factoring in shrinking and flight.  With a 7 SPD, Supergirl would run through END pretty quickly too, although having 100 END gives her a bit of staying power. 
 
Maybe the builds behind the scenes build in some reduced/0 END to offset this, though.
 
More broadly, END is really an "old school RPG" resource management element.  It does balance out some elements, like lower-cost exhausting powers, and some costs (like autofire) might need reconsideration if it were eliminated, but when many builds are designed around enough reduced END to remove its impact, the possibility of replacing it with something less fiddly seems to merit consideration, at least.
 
 
 
 
To some extent, I think this can be a question of the game constructed using the Hero system.  All of that stuff can be included as character sheet detail, but be left off for a one-off where it will not come into play - maybe we have a bunch of minutia skills and perks offset by a few complications.  Maybe the game style is more streamlined, so a lot of background issues (skill/perks, etc. and complications) are not used in the game, or are simply non-costed background elements with minimal or no in-game effect.  This is a dial setting that really merits more discussion in the rulebooks.

It's poorly phrased, but can be read in context. To me, it means that you can apply Penetrating to an attack's damage where you add the points on the dice and apply that to a defense. You cannot apply it to an attack 's damage computed with the "normal damage BOD" system where you get 0 for a 1, 1 for a 2-5 and 2 for a 6.  So you can't apply Penetrating to the BOD of a normal attack.  Since Flash has no effect that sums the rolls on the dice, you can't apply Penetrating to a Flash.
 
The 6e issue with Impenetrable is pretty simple.  Way back in 1e, we had Armor Piercing.  Hardened defended against it. 
 
Around Champions III/2e, we added Penetrating.  It needed a defense.  Well, we already had Hardened, so the simple approach was to allow Hardened to also defend against Penetrating.  Given 2 Hardened DEF did little against AP, we just tack on that Hardened blocks Penetrating entirely.
 
Fast forward to 6e, and the decision to carve "Impenetrable" off from Hardened.  I see the issue there as "cut & paste" without assessing that this means any Impenetrable voids Penetrating entirely.  The best response, to me, would have been 1 Impenetrable defense reduces 1 point of Penetrating damage. An 8d6 Penetrating Blast rolls average 28 STUN, 8 Penetrating.  You have 30 defenses, 5 of which are Impenetrable?  Then you take 28-30 = 0; or 8 - 5 = 3 Penetrating STUN.  3 STUN gets through.
 
For some reason, Penetrating got various weird rulings.  The "average roll" rule is a close second to "1 pip KA, Penetrating is always 1 Penetrating BOD" ruling.

I'd say I prefer leaving limited characteristics to making each bit a separate mechanic largely due to the tradition of having characteristics in RPGs in general, and the easier familiarity with them.
 
We could break "do damage" and have ranged and HTH normal damage.  But should we then break out knockback and separate STUN and BOD damage?  They are all "their own thing" aren't they?
 
On the skills front, I think "Hero as game design" could be better defined.  In Supers, we could likely get by with a single skill a la Detective Work.  A police procedural game might focus more on that aspect, mandating more granular skills.  Lawyer and Medical Doctor are likely enough for Supers where a courtroom or hospital drama, respectively, would need a finer breakdown.  Ditto Science.
 
I recall a very "user-designed" game where "Lawyer" or "Scientist" would give you an unmodified roll on all relevant challenges, unless someone else had a more specific skill like Business Law or Biologist.  The general skill would take a penalty when those specifics arose.  But then we might see an "International Tax" or "Molecular Biology" skill.  Now the middle skill takes a penalty and the generalist takes an even bigger penalty.
 
In the source material, in a Marvel movie, Stephen Strange knows all branches of medicine and Daredevil is well-versed in all aspects of the law.  In St. Elsewhere or Law & Order, they would be more specialized as every character would have some skill in these areas, and need to be differentiated.

I think my first step would be to assess whether the sheets could be customized for the specific Con game.  For example:

If no characters have mental powers, and no villains will, do we need Mental Combat Value or Mental Defense?

Do we need rDEF at all?  Only if the game will see killing attacks.  I guess Supergirl has one, so it needs to be explained.
Will there be adjustment powers?  If not, noting “unified power” isn’t relevant to the player.  If they will, Unified Power  will make them extremely complicated to deal with.  
I’m trying to look at this like I have never played Hero before.  Some thoughts:

There is some extra space in the bottom right of the Characteristics box.  Stretching Defenses into that area would allow “Resistant Defenses” to be more clearly identified.
So what’s this “Endurance” stat?  None of the abilities indicate their END cost, so this will be opaque to a new player.
The various “+x Characteristics” risks confusion as a player looks at Supergirl (for example) and thinks “OK, she has an OCV of 12.  I’ll use her Enhanced Physiology and Battle Training to increase that to 20”.
Flight could have a better explanation of Megascale (e.g. just “30 km out of combat”).
The player needs to know what “Absorption” does.
The player needs to know what “Damage Reduction” does.  This may be another unnecessary complication
A lot of abilities “Requires INT Roll” – the player needs to know what to roll.
A note that she can use only one Multipower ability at a time would help the player. 
Having these and the UP powers numbered suggests they have some common mechanic – one group is all usable at the same time and the other only one at a time? This will not be intuitive to a player.
Are all of the Complications necessary?  The player doesn’t need to know about Hunteds, and either the Danvers Family will be relevant or they won’t in the Con game.
A summary of attack options (especially for Supergirl’s STR) could be helpful to a player.
Dropped to Wasp here

An explanation of “Autofire” would also be useful. 
Is there any reason the player would choose the 8d6 attack instead of the 10d6 attack?  Maybe the 10d6 was not intended to be autofire?
Do any of her powers require that she shrink? 
Is that +5 OCV over and above the 11 at the top of the sheet?
Striking Appearance is unclear – does it add to the stats already presented?  Is it always applicable?  What does “+1 PRE” mean?

 


 
On the Builds
 I assume the intent is not to run Supergirl and the Wasp together.

If the goal is to introduce players to the game, I like the Wasp’s power level a lot more than Supergirl’s. 
Neither have much investment in skills.
As Doc D notes, having a two-sided sheet would open up more explanatory notes and more “how to run the character in a game” options.
I would also consider “full build” sheets, but only for interested players after the game, perhaps with "campaign guidelines" like DC and defense ranges, an expected focus on superhuman powers over skills, etc.

I think my first step would be to assess whether the sheets could be customized for the specific Con game.  For example:

If no characters have mental powers, and no villains will, do we need Mental Combat Value or Mental Defense?

Do we need rDEF at all?  Only if the game will see killing attacks.  I guess Supergirl has one, so it needs to be explained.
Will there be adjustment powers?  If not, noting “unified power” isn’t relevant to the player.  If they will, Unified Power  will make them extremely complicated to deal with.  
I’m trying to look at this like I have never played Hero before.  Some thoughts:

There is some extra space in the bottom right of the Characteristics box.  Stretching Defenses into that area would allow “Resistant Defenses” to be more clearly identified.
So what’s this “Endurance” stat?  None of the abilities indicate their END cost, so this will be opaque to a new player.
The various “+x Characteristics” risks confusion as a player looks at Supergirl (for example) and thinks “OK, she has an OCV of 12.  I’ll use her Enhanced Physiology and Battle Training to increase that to 20”.
Flight could have a better explanation of Megascale (e.g. just “30 km out of combat”).
The player needs to know what “Absorption” does.
The player needs to know what “Damage Reduction” does.  This may be another unnecessary complication
A lot of abilities “Requires INT Roll” – the player needs to know what to roll.
A note that she can use only one Multipower ability at a time would help the player. 
Having these and the UP powers numbered suggests they have some common mechanic – one group is all usable at the same time and the other only one at a time? This will not be intuitive to a player.
Are all of the Complications necessary?  The player doesn’t need to know about Hunteds, and either the Danvers Family will be relevant or they won’t in the Con game.
A summary of attack options (especially for Supergirl’s STR) could be helpful to a player.
Dropped to Wasp here

An explanation of “Autofire” would also be useful. 
Is there any reason the player would choose the 8d6 attack instead of the 10d6 attack?  Maybe the 10d6 was not intended to be autofire?
Do any of her powers require that she shrink? 
Is that +5 OCV over and above the 11 at the top of the sheet?
Striking Appearance is unclear – does it add to the stats already presented?  Is it always applicable?  What does “+1 PRE” mean?

 


 
On the Builds
 I assume the intent is not to run Supergirl and the Wasp together.

If the goal is to introduce players to the game, I like the Wasp’s power level a lot more than Supergirl’s. 
Neither have much investment in skills.
As Doc D notes, having a two-sided sheet would open up more explanatory notes and more “how to run the character in a game” options.
I would also consider “full build” sheets, but only for interested players after the game, perhaps with "campaign guidelines" like DC and defense ranges, an expected focus on superhuman powers over skills, etc.

Role playing to me is taking on the role of the character and playing that.  A huge part of the character is the skills and stats the player purchased when they created the character.   When your character with no social skills and a PRE of 8 tries to make eloquent speeches to get people to agree with him that is not role playing, especially when he rolls an 18 for his persuasion.  
 
I have seen one person do this properly. It was in a Pathfinder game and the player was playing an elf with a low CHA (7 if I remember), and rolls a -1 for his diplomacy check.   The character was an elf who was  somewhat racist and believed that elves were better than other races.  He was in a bar filled with humans trying to diffuse a bad situation.  The player starts calling the humans in the bar something that would probably get me a warning on these boards.  That is role playing.  
 

I never understood the idea that you had to try and act out social interactions that your character should be able to do, but you cannot.  That is not role playing, that is using your own skills in place of those of your characters.   That is in fact the exact opposite of what good role playing should be.   I am an engineer with decades of experience with computers, but I don’t force my non-technical players to give me detailed descriptions when they try to “hack” into a system.  What I will do is after the roll come up with a reasonable description of how they did it.  
 
Real role playing would be to make the roll and then play out the results.  For example, if the player is good at making speeches and fails his roll by a huge amount, they should start spouting of absolute garbage that is going to totally screw up the situation.  That is role playing, not trying to salvage the situation.   If the player makes the role give some suggestion on how they did it and maybe change their wording to something that actually sounds reasonable.  
 

I can "make a half move and multi-attack with my rapier" or I can "spring forward, using the chandelier overhead to vault over the table, delivering a blinding flurry of strikes and ripostes against the miscreant - yield, false champion, or we will strike you down!".  It should not change my likelihood of success, but one makes for a far better game than the other.  As a GM, I may wish to encourage the latter, perhaps allowing a small bonus.
 
I can "give a speech to talk the guards into ignoring us" or I can "beseech the guards, who can see clearly that their liege is under the influence of an enchantress who seeks to lead the Barony into war and chaos, to simply allow us passage that we might prevent this horrific end".  It should not change my likelihood of success, but one makes for a far better game than the other.  As a GM, I may wish to encourage the latter, perhaps allowing a small bonus.
 
If, as a GM, I award no bonus for the in-combat role playing, and in a social setting, I penalize the first character with a -6 to his 15- skill roll, but give the second a +2 bonus to his Everman 8-, what message does that send?  If you want to adjudicate social interaction based on player skill, tell the players not to bother spending points on PRE or social skills, as you plan to just ignore them anyway.
 
 
BINGO - denying the wallflower the choice of playing a glib con man or a Casanova is no better that telling a player "you can't play an agile rogue - you're too fat and klutzy".  We don't play these games to run our own skill set in a funny hat.
 
But undoubtedly there are players who are more or less physically fit, and some who have firearms experience and expertise, while others may have fenced.  It does not mean they get free combat advantages over an asthmatic, obese couch potato.

I can "make a half move and multi-attack with my rapier" or I can "spring forward, using the chandelier overhead to vault over the table, delivering a blinding flurry of strikes and ripostes against the miscreant - yield, false champion, or we will strike you down!".  It should not change my likelihood of success, but one makes for a far better game than the other.  As a GM, I may wish to encourage the latter, perhaps allowing a small bonus.
 
I can "give a speech to talk the guards into ignoring us" or I can "beseech the guards, who can see clearly that their liege is under the influence of an enchantress who seeks to lead the Barony into war and chaos, to simply allow us passage that we might prevent this horrific end".  It should not change my likelihood of success, but one makes for a far better game than the other.  As a GM, I may wish to encourage the latter, perhaps allowing a small bonus.
 
If, as a GM, I award no bonus for the in-combat role playing, and in a social setting, I penalize the first character with a -6 to his 15- skill roll, but give the second a +2 bonus to his Everman 8-, what message does that send?  If you want to adjudicate social interaction based on player skill, tell the players not to bother spending points on PRE or social skills, as you plan to just ignore them anyway.
 
 
BINGO - denying the wallflower the choice of playing a glib con man or a Casanova is no better that telling a player "you can't play an agile rogue - you're too fat and klutzy".  We don't play these games to run our own skill set in a funny hat.
 
But undoubtedly there are players who are more or less physically fit, and some who have firearms experience and expertise, while others may have fenced.  It does not mean they get free combat advantages over an asthmatic, obese couch potato.

That might be preferable to a player with poor speaking skills being expected to orate in character or simply not be able to play face type characters. 
 
I say that as the player who often plays face type characters and am often deferred to in such situations even when my character is supposed to be a slow-thinking grunt.  My friends expect it of me, and not of others.  The game system should not reinforce this kind of stereotyping.  In the example above, I would seek a bit of additional information - what is he drawing on to persuade the guards, why should they look the other way, why should you be different.  I would not make the player orate (and potentially have them embarrassed at doing something they know they are not good - and perhaps not even competent at - in front of their friends).

By the same token, when a player who is playing a character with no social/interaction skills and low social characteristics (PRE, COM in some editions) and the player makes eloquent oratories, or charming comments, that does not override the character's lack of social graces.  Expecting player skill to overcome a lack of character skill is bad role playing.

By the same token, when a player who is playing a character with no social/interaction skills and low social characteristics (PRE, COM in some editions) and the player makes eloquent oratories, or charming comments, that does not override the character's lack of social graces.  Expecting player skill to overcome a lack of character skill is bad role playing.

I think there's a "chicken and the egg" issue here.  If the game is built around combat, players build combat-capable characters.  If the game were focused on athletics, social interaction or courtroom drama, players would build characters that can contribute to such areas.  I'm not sure track & field would make for a great game - single-person sports would not be conducive to a game group.  But fencing, judo and wrestling are "combat sports" we can better simulate with combat rules and we avoid one-on-one combats for the same reason.
 
 
The physical combat system does not require players to demonstrate exactly how they aim their bow, swing their sword or shoot fire from their eyes, nor how they will tough out that arrow in their shoulder, block that sharp metal with their shield or shrug off those flames. 
 
Most issues I see with social conflict "players aren't good at" comes from GM's who are fine with Big Barney, who needs two rest stops to haul his obese body up a flight of stairs, doing Kirk shoulder rolls as he nimby weaves through mook enemies to backflip over the Big Bad for an attack from behind with his rapier - stiletto combined attack, but insist on Walter Wallflower "role playing" his Casanova-level seduction skills in "social combat" with the Femme Fatale.  Once we accept that the characters have skills that the players do not, so we should not base success or failure on the player's skills, that issue goes away.

It's poorly phrased, but can be read in context. To me, it means that you can apply Penetrating to an attack's damage where you add the points on the dice and apply that to a defense. You cannot apply it to an attack 's damage computed with the "normal damage BOD" system where you get 0 for a 1, 1 for a 2-5 and 2 for a 6.  So you can't apply Penetrating to the BOD of a normal attack.  Since Flash has no effect that sums the rolls on the dice, you can't apply Penetrating to a Flash.
 
The 6e issue with Impenetrable is pretty simple.  Way back in 1e, we had Armor Piercing.  Hardened defended against it. 
 
Around Champions III/2e, we added Penetrating.  It needed a defense.  Well, we already had Hardened, so the simple approach was to allow Hardened to also defend against Penetrating.  Given 2 Hardened DEF did little against AP, we just tack on that Hardened blocks Penetrating entirely.
 
Fast forward to 6e, and the decision to carve "Impenetrable" off from Hardened.  I see the issue there as "cut & paste" without assessing that this means any Impenetrable voids Penetrating entirely.  The best response, to me, would have been 1 Impenetrable defense reduces 1 point of Penetrating damage. An 8d6 Penetrating Blast rolls average 28 STUN, 8 Penetrating.  You have 30 defenses, 5 of which are Impenetrable?  Then you take 28-30 = 0; or 8 - 5 = 3 Penetrating STUN.  3 STUN gets through.
 
For some reason, Penetrating got various weird rulings.  The "average roll" rule is a close second to "1 pip KA, Penetrating is always 1 Penetrating BOD" ruling.

I think there's a "chicken and the egg" issue here.  If the game is built around combat, players build combat-capable characters.  If the game were focused on athletics, social interaction or courtroom drama, players would build characters that can contribute to such areas.  I'm not sure track & field would make for a great game - single-person sports would not be conducive to a game group.  But fencing, judo and wrestling are "combat sports" we can better simulate with combat rules and we avoid one-on-one combats for the same reason.
 
 
The physical combat system does not require players to demonstrate exactly how they aim their bow, swing their sword or shoot fire from their eyes, nor how they will tough out that arrow in their shoulder, block that sharp metal with their shield or shrug off those flames. 
 
Most issues I see with social conflict "players aren't good at" comes from GM's who are fine with Big Barney, who needs two rest stops to haul his obese body up a flight of stairs, doing Kirk shoulder rolls as he nimby weaves through mook enemies to backflip over the Big Bad for an attack from behind with his rapier - stiletto combined attack, but insist on Walter Wallflower "role playing" his Casanova-level seduction skills in "social combat" with the Femme Fatale.  Once we accept that the characters have skills that the players do not, so we should not base success or failure on the player's skills, that issue goes away.

I think there's a "chicken and the egg" issue here.  If the game is built around combat, players build combat-capable characters.  If the game were focused on athletics, social interaction or courtroom drama, players would build characters that can contribute to such areas.  I'm not sure track & field would make for a great game - single-person sports would not be conducive to a game group.  But fencing, judo and wrestling are "combat sports" we can better simulate with combat rules and we avoid one-on-one combats for the same reason.
 
 
The physical combat system does not require players to demonstrate exactly how they aim their bow, swing their sword or shoot fire from their eyes, nor how they will tough out that arrow in their shoulder, block that sharp metal with their shield or shrug off those flames. 
 
Most issues I see with social conflict "players aren't good at" comes from GM's who are fine with Big Barney, who needs two rest stops to haul his obese body up a flight of stairs, doing Kirk shoulder rolls as he nimby weaves through mook enemies to backflip over the Big Bad for an attack from behind with his rapier - stiletto combined attack, but insist on Walter Wallflower "role playing" his Casanova-level seduction skills in "social combat" with the Femme Fatale.  Once we accept that the characters have skills that the players do not, so we should not base success or failure on the player's skills, that issue goes away.

We tend to assign higher SPDs because the Supers games have conditioned us to "anyone remotely capable has at least SPD 4".  The difference between a "normal" 2 and a 3 is pretty significant.  We're probably too free with 15s, 18s and 20s as well.

6E2 page 88.  Several conditions, and a strong advisory to use this for cinematic effect, not as a tactical move allowing the flier or runner to make an attack with little or no range mod, while ending up OUT of range.  The attacker plots his full move;  he can make his attack at any point in the attack.
 
It even allows strafing runs at non-combat speeds, altho not when using Megascale.  Of course, your OCV drops to 0 because of that...THEN you have OCV penalty (v/6) AND the range mod.

I prefer the "pushing is not something anyone and everyone can do if they are willing to spend the END" model. It's a rare moment for especially heroic actions, not a quick way to tack on an extra 2 DCs in the hopes of ending the fight faster.

From the looks of it you did.  What Hugh is trying to say is that the Rules Question area is the wrong forum for this type of thing.  As he mention very few people can respond there, and all you will get is an answer on how the rule works.  You already know how the rule works and it looks like you want a discussion and feedback from others.