prestidigitator

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

Interesting aside. In 2nd Edition AD&D my group always played up the (optional, yeah right!) non-weapon proficiencies. Each skill had an ability score its roll was based on (e.g. roll under your dexterity to succeed). Each skill also had a modifier. For years and years and years we thought the modifier was to your ability score (e.g. if your character with Dex 14 used a skill that was based on Dex and had a -2 modifier, you'd want to roll equal to or under 14-2=12 to succeed, making the roll more difficult), but then one day one of us re-read the rules and discovered that in the Player's Handbook the modifiers are actually to the die roll itself, so a negative modifier is good and a positive modifier is bad (e.g. if your character with Dex 14 used a skill that was based on Dex and had a -2 modifier, you'd actually want to roll equal to or under 16 because 16-2=14, making the roll easier). Compounded to this was the fact that in the Dungeon Master's Guide, the sense of the modifier is reversed (our original interpretation was correct for things listed in the DMG, but we always used the PHB as our reference when building characters and using skills, so...).

Radio announcer advertising voice: Does that sound like your experience with the Hero System? Relax! Look no further! Our roll-high method is here to save the day! Simply roll 3d6 and add your modifier! It's the D&D-3E-equivalent to your Hero System woes!

Re: AE Accurate War! Ugh ... what is it good for? (Absolutely nothing?)

I kinda enjoy and like to play up the fact that you can Dive for Cover out of the area and avoid the Accurate attack completely. In fact, personally I make it easier to DFC from an Accurate AoE attack than from a normal attack; I require that DFC from a non-area attack actually get you out of range (for HTH attacks, outside reach plus whatever combat movement the attacker has left to make/complete a Half-Move before attacking) or behind cover to work. To DFC out of the effect of an Accurate AoE attack you just have to dive far enough to leave the radius of the AoE. That may be non-standard, but IMO it lends a nice feel to the mechanic and feels fair and balanced.

Re: More Blockages

Hmm. And how are you going to deal with blocking with a shield or weapon? Built-in limited DN for each Focus, or...?

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I have that big a problem with Block avoiding damage completely, given how difficult it can be to pull it off and that you have to use up a (Aborted, Delayed, or normal) Phase to do it. If you apply common sense as a GM I think you can easily deal with situations like blocking weapons with bare hands in a way that makes sense for the game/genre being played. Give OCV penalties or make it straight out impossible if the circumstances are such that the block doesn't make sense.

I THINK I can see where you are coming from in terms of cost. I'm not worried about the ability to sell it back; I think that can just be folded into Complications that make the maneuver impossible (in addition to whatever other drawbacks there might be such as not being able to wear a wristwatch if you don't have arms) if it really makes sense to do so. But it might at times be nice to be able to do things like apply (Naked) Advantages such as Trigger. I think I'd just consider Block to be an Everyman HTH version of Deflection for that purpose, myself.

Oh, and I think you're thinking too hard again, Sean. I smell smoke.

Re: Teleport and Clairsentience

This is starting to sound like the Riftwar Saga, only with robots. Heh heh.

Re: Visualising Block

I'm not saying I wouldn't allow that myself' date=' Sean, but you realise that technically speaking Supes would need Deflection for that - normally, you can't block attacks aimed at those other than yourself.[/quote']

Actually you can:

BLOCKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE

A character can Block for someone else — a useful tactic when he wants to defend an injured or defenseless person from an attacker. To do this, a character must be within Reach of either the attacker or the target (either naturally, or because he can extend his Reach with a weapon or some other way).

 

An attempt to Block for someone else is made at -2 OCV. If it succeeds, the attack is Blocked. However, the character doesn’t automatically get to go first before the opponent whose attack he Blocked if they both have their next Phase in the same Segment; they act on their respective DEXs in the usual manner.

(Deflection allows you to do this at range--i.e. Block for someone across the room from you who is not within reach.)

 

And that is a major benefit of Block. You can Block for someone else, but you can't Dodge for someone else. The only other real option you'd have for interceding is to do a Dive for Cover to be voluntarily hit by the attack instead of allowing the attacker a to-hit roll against their chosen target. Or, if the GM is willing, stand in front of the target and provide them a Concealment DCV bonus; if you're doing this on purpose and the GM has his head screwed on correctly then the attack should automatically hit you if it misses the intended target by less then or equal to the Concealment bonus you are providing the target.

Re: Teleport and Clairsentience

Remember that MegaScale (MetaRange that is) also changes the scale for the range modifier. So a power that's MegaScaled to 1m -> 1km gets -2 range modifier at 8km, not 8m.

I've always thought the rule about not being able to set a Floating Location via Clairsentience is stupid. I might require some extra time to for it, but I generally allow it. I suppose it might depend a little on the game and the circumstances too, though. If the SFX of setting a Floating Location meant you had to perform some sort of little ritual at the location, Clairsentience might not cut it after all.

Re: Visualising Block

A look through my 5e non-Revised book gives no indication that the Block maneuver requires contact of any sort. Furthermore' date=' Damage Shield says the attacker takes damage from the Damage Shield on a successful attack; if the Defender blocked it, that attack is by definition not successful, so the Damage Shield won't damage the attacker.[/quote']

Oh, I don't know. If someone were stupid enough to block a sword with his bare arm (certainly possible), I'd rule that's just deciding on what Hit Location takes the damage and apply that damage on a successful Block. And likely I'd apply the same principle to a Damage Shield. You could rule that the unarmed block could succeed at a large penalty by, say, getting close enough and grabbing the weapon hand before the swing is completed. I'd give that a possibility, but it's not going to work against some attacks like a bullet or some Damage Shields. Blocking a Damage Shield with a weapon or shield or something? Doable, but depending on the circumstances and SFX I might have the Focus take the damage. Sometimes a Block just isn't the brightest thing to do, and that's okay. That's life. That's interesting tactics and realism in a game.

 

I think it's dumb to abstract these mechanics TOO far from the "SFX". A recent discussion about Skill use comes to mind. If you jump right out in front of someone but want to make a Stealth roll and not be noticed, what's the reasonable ruling? Personally I'd have to say, "No. You just volunteered to fail your Stealth roll. To get a chance to succeed you actually have to seek out circumstances where you might not be seen or heard." (Or maybe allow an attempt at -10 or worse.) I'd say it's UNREASONABLE to say Hero abstracts SFX from mechanics to the point where we should allow dumb-ass stunts and interpretations like that. So if you want your Stealth skill to represent your ability to just stand there and not be noticed, tough. Draw a reasonable line somewhere. A block is a block. A block is not a dodge. When you dodge you are already going absolutely all out trying to avoid being hit, and the Dodge maneuver represents that in the Hero System the way the system designers have chosen to make that work. A block is an attempt to intercept and deflect an attack. The Block maneuver represents that in the Hero System. Trying to go all abstract and second guess things beyond that may be an interesting exercise for people on the boards who doesn't have anything better to do for the moment, but IMO it's just not necessary or helpful at the gaming table.

Re: Mental CSL's and base cost weirdness (6e)

But with Mental CSLs you can bounce your mental attacks!

(In all seriousness I'd like to see more uses like bouncing attacks to make CSLs more effective. Mental CSLs can increase the damage/effect of mental powers, so I suppose if you want to get a bit of a rebate you can limit away that ability and pay a little less than 6 points....)

EDIT: Actually, on pondering it for a moment I think I'd like to revisit that idea of bouncing mental attacks with a little more seriousness. What if you could bounce Mental Powers off of minds to establish LOS where you otherwise might not have it? Hmm.....

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

Yeah, not really. But hey, anything can happen in a superheroic game, eh?

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

What seems more complicated to me without really making things any easier is presenting DCV+10 as DCV. It has the benefit of simplifying what is already the simplest case' date=' but it makes more complicated cases even more complex. With Markdoc's clarification of what he does I can see it being of limited use, but it seems like a lot of extra work to set up.[/quote']

Hmm. Yeah, I can agree there. I can see where it might be of very limited use for very, very simple games and inexperienced gamers, but that's a nipple I'd want to wean people off within a game or two.

Re: Solar Hero timeline

Well that is the thing. Even with training most people would be unfit to fly the thing. It is clear just driving down the highway that most of people one shares the road would be dangerous piloting a flying vehicle. That is why any mass produced flying car will need to basically fly itself and give it's "driver" just enough control to have the illusion of being in charge. I don't consider such a design to be impossible just very' date=' very difficult. However, given that we are talking about a 190 year time frame it seemed reasonable to me that we might eventually get there.[/quote']

Yeah. And self-driving ground cars are probably a lot closer than the flying variety. We already have some examples of experimenting (I believe a short section of freeway near M.I.T. was setup for autopilot--or autodrive I suppose--a while back), collision prevention (radar warning systems and such), and smart cruise control (I read an article a couple years ago about one that maintains safe stopping distance and minimizes speed changes for efficiency and in the hopes of smoothing traffic slowdowns). GPS will be a huge aid as well. We're really not that far off from 2D self-driving vehicles.

Re: Combat Flowchart

Yeah, that seems like a pretty common viewpoint, and I can't say I disagree that the inconsistency is disturbing. However, we've been over that one several times already and apparently it was by design rather than oversight.

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

If you Dispel a power that's bought with a Focus you break that focus so it will require repairs.

Plus you only really need to buy AOE and Variable Effect +1/2 to affect every electronic device in an area.

If a focus has multiple, individual not frameworked, electronic powers you would technically only dispel one of those powers, probably the one with the largest active points, but I believe the focus would still be broken and the other powers unusable.

Just a thought.

I don't think so. My understanding is that without also enough Expanded Effect to cover any and every power in the category of SFX you'd have to choose what kind of Power or Characteristic to affect with each use of the Dispel. For example, one Phase you might affect electronics-based Flight. The next Phase you might affect electronics-based Resistant Protection (e.g. force fields?). The next Phase you might affect electronics-based Strength (e.g. servo-motors). You would not have the option of saying, "I want to affect whatever electronics based power (or power(s)) each target has." This makes SFX-based Adjustment powers pretty damn worthless in 6E in my opinion unless they are bought with the +4 worth of Advantages and permission from the GM to make that cover all powers of the given SFX.

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

For cases when Focus-breaking RKA/Dispel type powers may be considered too potent, consider Drain/Suppress instead. That should create similar but less destructive effects (despite likely being even more expensive in terms of Active Points).

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

Like pretty much everything with the HERO system there are multiple valid approaches.

 

An unusual one you might consider is Change Environment. An EMP is a real world phenomena that has real environmental effects. It can be destructive in various circumstances to some things but not others, just as a windstorm or extreme temperature can be.

 

Change Environment also supports the ability to selectively purchase various tangential effects as part of the base power limiting or removing the need to build a complex linked power.

 

The GM should simply define what effect an EMP has objectively at various levels of effect and a sample power effect. Existing environmental effects can serve as a guide for this. Then characters that have an ability to cause or modify EM fields purchase a version of CE to model the desired magnitude.

Hmm. Good point. I certainly wouldn't feel bad about a CE messing with "real" equipment that wasn't purchased with points. I suppose you could assume that powers bought without some kind of Limitation making them vulnerable to strong electromagnetic fields/pulses aren't particularly susceptible to them (i.e. are shielded so a RKA or Dispel or whatever WOULD be necessary to disrupt such superpowers), and that appropriate electronics-based powers will take some kind of Limitation (either a specific one or some kind of "Real Equipment" type thing).

Re: Magical Knick Knacks

I had a small box that would preserve food in it indefinitely. Life Support (no need to eat) with 1 Recoverable (put more food in) 1-day Continuing Fuel Charge (-0). Probably overkill, but clever (or so I thought ).

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

To me it seems like a needless complication of something that already works great.

It's things like that kind of use of the word "complication" that are grating on me, and sound pretty darn defensive. It's not a complication at all. It's a different way of making the roll. There's certainly nothing more complex about it than the current default. I've never said the current way of doing it doesn't work well; just that this might work slightly better, particularly for new players.

Re: What's the next step?

My bet is on ion drives rather than nuclear propulsion, but most likely there'll be some kind of hybrid approach. Decelerating isn't that big of a deal, as it is generally symmetrical with the problem of accelerating toward the destination (though there are possible solutions for decelerating that will take less active propulsion, such as magnetic sails).

We don't have to worry much about solar escape velocity, by the way, since we are starting off in pretty high solar orbit (meaning we already have almost enough speed/energy to essentially be "free" of the Sun's gravity; the difference in velocity between Earth's orbit and solar escape velocity is 12 km/s--paltry compared to the kind of speeds we'll be interested in for interstellar travel, and actually about equal to Earth's escape velocity from the surface of the planet so it's the kind of magnitude we're used to dealing with). We've already sent probes (such as Voyager 1 and Voyager 2) into the outer regions of the heliosphere, where they continue to collect data. It's more a matter of how much time it takes to get out there than whether it can be done at all.

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? Let's say I have a base DCV of 5, so my Active number is 15 or 13, correct?

 

I use a Defensive Strike, or apply three levels, or otherwise get a 3 point DCV modifier. Now my active number is 18 (3 better) and my passive number should be 14 (1 better) since my base DCV is 8.

 

But, if I spend some xp to buy a +1 DCV, so my active number is now 16 or 13, unmodified, and I add the same three levels, my active number becomes 19 (still 3 better) and my passive number becomes 15 (two better).

 

Since I will change maneuvers, and have other modifiers fluctuate in combat, the rounding changes as I go along. How do you deal with that using the "target number" approach? I suppose you could total up all your modifiers, and add only half to the passive number, but that would seem to favour an odd DCV, which always benefits from rounding. Now we get the anomaly that a natural 6 DCV results in a passive target of 13, but a 5 DCV + 1 level gives a passive number of 14.

 

I guess you could round modifiers down, but then a 6 DCV gets a passive target of 13, and so does a 6 DCV with a +1 modifier. We're no longer modifying in favour of the defender.

 

Any approach could work, given all we're doing is changing the rounding breakpoints, but with varying DCV's as combat progresses, this creates an added issue to be addressed.

 

At least 0 DCV always leaves a target number of 10, and area effect attacks always have a target number of 13.

When attacking a player I just roll 3d6+OCV and then say, 'What's your current DCV?" or, "What's half your current DCV?" If they respond with 5, I know I hit if I reached a target number of 15 or higher. If a player is attacking I do the opposite: they roll their attack roll as 3d6 plus their current OCV (or half their current OCV). If they are trying to hit my NPC with DCV 7, they hit if they roll a 17 or better. I always have a target number in mind when skills are being rolled as well, with the default difficulty being 12.

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

Simply stating "I'm right, and if you don't work that way you're weird" doesn't actually prove anything. The most "proof" I've ever seen for your POV is a few studies that show that people are marginally faster at adding than they are at subtracting. I don't find either that or the "Obviously it is easier for everyone since it is easier for me" to be very convincing.

 

I'm not quite sure why people get so defensive about the whole roll high thing. The fact that it works better for them doesn't seem to be enough, nor does just sharing it so that others that have the same issues that they do can try it as an alternative. If it stayed at that level I'd never comment on the topic. When people feel the need to go the extra step and decide that since they like roll high better it has to be objectively a better way to do things that I generally feel the need to comment.

 

The roll high vs roll low thing is one of those things that I've only ever seen even be any kind of an issue in the online community. I've never actually gamed with anyone who found rolling low to be a problem that needed "fixing". The first 20 years of my time playing Hero it never even occurred to me that there was the possibility of it being an issue. It never came up once, among the literally hundreds of people I taught or played Hero with during that time. I've also never actually gamed with anyone who had any problem with "roll low to determine success, roll high to determine effect". Or anyone who has been confused by the term "Stunned". Or any of a number of other supposed "weaknesses" of the Hero system that seem to be popular in online communities.

Hardly defensive. We were sharing mutual excitement over a new way of doing things, that makes it easier for new players. Unfortunately that seems to make certain people defensive themselves. I'm not saying I think it is easier for people because I like it or it is easier for me personally. It's actually the opposite: the thing that appeals to me about it is that it is easier for new people, not that it is necessarily easier for me personally.

Re: This will require some explaining

Hmm. Yeah. I'd probably go with HRRP, add in some Discriminatory, Analyze, and Transmit, and compliment it with some skills like Systems Operation ("...allow characters to send or intercept navigational or encoded data."), maybe Computer Programming, and optionally Cryptography. Slap some Limitations on the sense and the skills if you want to restrict it to wireless Internet access only, and I'd call it good.

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

That makes no sense. From what I have read about it. EMP works through the properties of induction. So you would either need an active current running in the circuit or a magnet that is close enough to said circuit. A live circuit IS a live magnet (though in many cases a VERY weak one). So a dead circuit SHOULD be completely safe from EMP.

 

Now Hard Drives work by magnetizing a small spot on the platter of a metalic disk. So it's possible that there would be huge data loss. EEPROMs(Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory), and Flash Memory should be pretty resistant to EMP for the same reason an unpowered circuit is. ie No current, no induced current that exceeds the specs of the circuit. Also Flash drives and EEPROMs don't seem to be effected by strong magnets (ex in cases where said magnet induces a current in the device while it is on, ie don't wave strong magnets in front of live circuitry).

 

Also, I doubt that a playable superheroic being has the ability to cause an EMP that is as strong as an Airburst Nuke's EMP. So the damage to circuitry in those cases are easy to shield against, and limited more or less to those items that are turned on, or are connected to live power lines (assuming that said powerlines were targeted by the EMP attack).

A changing magnetic field will induce an electric current in as simple a component as a loop of wire with absolutely no pre-induced current or potential difference (voltage) required. In fact, some AC motors are built such that induced eddy currents on a metallic core will provide enough of a magnetic field to produce torque in the externally generated field. Every electronic component in existence is going to have a bit of inductance, and is going to be subject to strong electromagnetic signals to some degree. Whether induced currents and voltages (of a given strength) actually damage the component is a matter of the amount of inductance, the amount of resistance, and the materials out of which the component is made.

As for whether a superhero could generate an effective EMP, it's going to be a matter of range. The intensity of the signal will drop off with the square of the distance. Nuclear explosions create EMPs that can damage electronics at very long range. Devices that generate EMPs electrically have a much shorter range, but at that short range they can be as effective as the nuke at long range. I don't see why a superhero couldn't generate a pulse that would do some measurable damage at limited human-scale ranges.

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

an AF onto it is also appropriate' date=' as you will be effecting more than one power in some foci (by RAW, you would only knock out one system in a poewr suit for instance with the above build)[/quote']

Well, any attack that does more than a Focus' PD/ED knocks out one power. Optionally, any attack that does double its PD/ED destroys it completely.

 

A Focus is destroyed when it loses all of its powers' date=' or when any single attack against it does two times (2x) its PD/ED in BODY, at the GM’s option.[/quote']

Re: Regeneration Potion

This ruling strikes me as really dumb and counter-productive, but:

If a power with Time Limit also has Charges' date=' each Phase during the Time Limit requires 1 Charge. If a character wants to have a Time Limit power that has Charges and for which each Charge lasts for the specified duration, he must make them Continuing Charges with a duration equal to the Time Limit duration (he can even do this if it’s an Instant Power). Typically the GM caps the value of Continuing Charges at -0, especially if Time Limit is an Advantage, but the final decision is up to him.[/quote']

Basically I see no sensible way to combine the two Modifers in a useful way. If you've got Continuous Charges, the duration is limited/extended anyway and there's no need for Time Limit. If you don't have Continuing Charges, a power with Time Limit is going to suck up your charges faster than you can blink. I'm seriously considering house ruling this away, myself.

Re: Electro Magnetic Pulse

Keep in mind electronic items that are not currently powered usually are not adversely affected by EMPs. A vehicle that wasn't on when the EMP detonated can be started once the effect has passed.

That's not necessarily true. Integrated circuits can be damaged whether on or not. Being powered normally when the pulse hits may or may not make a difference; certainly current operation can be disrupted whether or not a device is actually destroyed, but if no actual damage is done a reset may help just as much as the device being off when it was hit. Whether your vehicle depends too much on complex circuits vulnerable enough to be damaged by the pulse is another question. Magnetic storage devices such as hard disks and EEPROM (flash memory and such) could also be messed up pretty badly even if not in use, so there goes your data, operating system, embedded programs stored in devices, etc.