Sean Waters

I do get why people would want to do this, but it is not something you can do in the rules as written, so anything you do will be a house rule and there are no rules for house rules, so you can do what you like. I'm just pointing out that I think there may be good reasons for not allowing this sort of thing in the rules, despite a player wanting to be able to do something of the sort. I am firmly of the opinion that the biggest mistake Hero makes is suggesting that you can build any character you want/can imagine without the caveat "given enough points". If there is a part of the game where you are going to have to crack a computer system and no one in the group has 'Computer Programming' as a skill, go find an NPC who can help or get a GM who does not build insurmountable challenges.

...because you forgot to include the limitation 'only works on targets with an appropriate metabolism'?

Hero combat is so proverbially free flowing and speedy that what we really need is a few extra rolls every phase to slow down the breakneck pace. Hmm. So, I'm not sure that most people decide in combat what they are going to do ahead of time: they react to openings and errors. Mike Tyson famously said that everyone has a plan until they are hit in the face. In any event knowing what your opponent is thinking may not help. CLICKY

I don't not use END but I often build characters that don't need it to run their powers: if you want a simpler game, do that, make everyone have the same SPD and buy the same amount of PD as ED. Build the characters right and you can skip a lot of the apparent complication. You don't need new or house rules, you just need a clear idea of the character build mechanics and how the choices impact the game. I wrote a board game using the full Hero rules, each of the pieces a proper Hero character, but you'd never know because all you needed to play the game was a knowledge of how far the piece could move, what its combat value and damage were and how much damage it could take. It was a zombie apocalypse game where you had to explore random board sections for random salvage The pieces were built using the automaton rules (the only real divergence from the RAW being PCs could, well, had to, take the 'takes no STUN' power). All the powers used no END (and could not be pushed), rPD and rED were the same, everyone had the same BODY and Run, yadda yadda. You wouldn't even know it was Hero, to be honest, but I did, and it was.

I'll make this point: I like GMing and I like playing, but GMing is a whole lot more work already without having to make a players vision of what your campaign should be like part of your vision too. i do not have the run time that I used to to devote to including all the foibles of a character in my game narrative and I've often written the plot so far ahead that I often don't even bother with working PC DNPCs in, let alone making sure that the PC's knowledge of Mesopotamian Pottery is properly spotlighted. In theory, yes, the character sheet is a contract, but a contract involves offer, acceptance and consideration: if a player wants to be a concert pianist as part of their concept, fine, but don't expect the GM to make this a plot point; accept that everyone probably has stuff on their character sheet that is not going to directly affect the game and that it all about balances. Make something of it as a player, don't expect the GM to. I'd go further: don't expect the GM to say 'that is not going to be useful, pick something else/have it for free' because who knows how things will develop, and if you are giving players the heads up on what is relevant to the campaign ahead of time then you are probably giving too much information. More to the point, how do you even know? I have played in and run games where the most obscure thing becomes a recognisable theme in the game and no one planned it that way. Sherlock Holmes plays violin, and probably paid character points to do so, and, whilst it is a trait most would recognise and he is often at practice, I don't recall it helping to solve any cases. it might have, but that is not why it is there.

One allocation per adventure would mean you have to set all three skills at the same time. Still, if your GM is OK with it and none of the other players object, go for it. I don't like it though because you knew stuff last week, why don't you know it this week? It only makes narrative sense if the GM does not create that kind of paradox (accidentally, presumably) and I'm against piling more stuff to remember on the GM. It also imposes limitations on other players in the way they construct their characters: they do it your way or are at a disadvantage. The reason it works for Batman is because Batman is a comic book character and the balance is in the hands of the author. Buying 2 skills at once makes it look more expensive, but, if you are dealing in principles here, you could buy any skill you need for this adventure for 6 points, or you could remove the -1/2 'one allocation per adventure' and have any skill whenever you want it, one at a time for just a few more points. Thin end of the wedge: we are transitioning here from a set of rules to a game of make up whatever you want, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that we should be aware that is what we are doing. The big problem here is that you tend to only use one skill at a time, so the build is really just a rule circumvention system. Again, not a problem, but we have to recognise that is what it is. IndianaJoe3 asks what sound a tree falling out of earshot makes (he phrased it differently, I'll give you that): it makes the same sound a tree falling in earshot makes, but if no one is around to hear it falling it might never get used for something useful. That is something we can lump on the GM - one of the GM's jobs is to look at the characters and make sure that they are relevant to the campaign.

True, but I figure that if you only change SPD PS12 it is all good.

Hero is a system that uses points, which is pretty obvious but worth stating because the reason it uses points is to try and build reasonably balanced characters. In some games being competent at every skill will be really useul, too useful in fact because you will overshadow every other character. In other games it is little more than bragging rights. I don't like the VPP/summon thing because, well, it does not make sense: why would a summon suppress field make me forget conversational French? I like the point that you can actually pay for every skill, and my base instinct is that is what you should do, but it is pretty messy, well, the character sheet will be, and you probably only have that number of points to spend if you have a superheroic game anyway. If someone is keen on this kind of thing then you could easily house rule the 'Universal skill' ability. I'd probably break it down a bit (being an expert in psychology doesn't mean you are an interesting conversationalist, for example), but I'd house rule something like this: Every Non Combat* Skill at 9- (or the equivalent if you are doing languages of 1 point familiarity) for (say) 25 points. You can not add skill levels to the roll: you want +1 then you need to buy another level for 25 points. This means you could be expert in every skill and area of knowledge (14-) for 150 points. You can tweak the base cost up or down 5 or 10 points depending on how important skills are in your game. *I'm counting as a combat skill more or less anything that affects your CV or damage. Universal skill would give you basic familiarity with every weapon, but that is as far as it goes.

So, hi everybody, how you been? Here is what I do when I decide that the SPD system needs a shake-up, and I usually do it until I regret it before I just go back to the standard rules which work fine: When you build your character, buy some of the SPD with an activation roll. Now I’m not at all sure this is textbook, but it is how I do it. Every PS 12, make that activation roll roll for each point of SPD with an activation roll, so if you have +2 SPD (11-) you make a roll for each point of SPD, so you could get +0, +1 or +2. You can, of course, make a single roll for both points (the benefit on average is the same) and you can buy extra SPD with different activation rolls (so +1 SPD on 14- and +1 SPD on 8- for example). So, say you have a base SPD of 4 and +2 SPD on 11-. You get to PS 12 and you roll the activation. Say you roll 10 and 14 so you get +1 SPD. Your SPD for this turn is 5. It could have been 4, 5 or 6. There are pros and cons to this approach (and most other methods of messing with the system). Pros: 1. It’s micromanagement. 2. The number of combat actions you get is less predictable, which may be seen as more realistic: it is all about the mechanics and this gives you a mechanic that reflects the chaotic nature of opportunities arising in combat. 3. You can still predict when your next action is going to be so you can plan tactically turn to turn. 4. It is all pretty quick once you get used to it and will not slow combat down. Cons: 1. It’s micromanagement. 2. The number of combat actions you get is less predictable, which may be seen as unrealistic: it is all about the narrative - if you attempt an attack and miss, that is the same as not taking that action, so the system already supports variable SPD in the storytelling – it is not as if the system actually simulates every move you make in combat anyway 3. You can’t predict how many actions you are going to get turn to turn in combat so you can not plan strategically over the whole combat. 4. It is extra rolls and slows combat down. So….then you can buy extra DEX (ONLY TO DETERMINE COMBAT ORDER) on an activation roll too, and really make yourself popular. All good-natured messing about aside, I like this approach because it allows you to effectively add/modify the way the rules work without adding to or modifying the way the rules work. The strength of Hero is that you can build an enormous range of things with the system as is, and this allows some players to have set SPD and some to have variable SPD and it is all using exactly the same system. As a general aside I would always try and use the build rules to implement a new system before house ruling anything.

Co-Linked? Where is that from? If you mean Jointly-Linked Powers, I have no clear idea what that means from the book. I am pretty sure, however, it does not mean that both parts of the linked power get a cost break. Here is a lovely little demonstration of why having different range characteristics for different adjustment powers is a bad idea. Self only Aid is a -1, but self only is automatically 'no range', which seriously limits who you COULD Aid. I am going to have to take another LONG hiatus from these boards because this is not good for my blood pressure.

Is this a superheroic game: are you paying points for all your MP powers? Is the Bow multipower built with charges? What is the END cost of the powers in the MP?

OK, this is a whole other can of worms. I screaming well HATE the focus modifier because it is a hybrid advantage/limitation. LIMITATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ADVANTAGES. We have a mechanism for allowing others to use your powers. We do not need another, seperate, rule in the Focus section. However, as the rules stand, yes, we can use the Focus limitation as a UBO advantage, and get a cost break for doing so, for pity's sakes. This is not clarified in the example of the power, because we wouldn't want people understanding how Hero works, or anything. Nonetheless that was a secondary point to the post - the main reason for having 'trigger' is to sidestep all those lengthy and complicated start-up conditions you got an enormous cost break for. Trigger allows you to deal with all that non-combat when start-p limitations do not matter. One more reason to question how well thought through all this has been.

I'm assuming that should have had 'trigger' in there? If not then a NCC Damage Shield would work fine. Yes, quite: trigger allows a power to be used lots of times a turn. I am questioning what game need that addresses.

It is normally me sidelining stuff... SO: 1. Drain Body works fine against inanimate objects. It drains the Body. 2. An object drained to 0 Body is destroyed, it crumbles to dust see page 196 of 6E1 3. Points of Body Drained DO recover at the standard adjustment power rate (usually 5/turn) whether or not the drained target has a REC value BUT destroyed objects (reduced to 0 or fewer Body) do not then magically resconstitute. If you have killed a building (#Archer) then it is dead. So, in effect, the recovery of drained Body only happens if the object is not completely destroyed. Moreover, and this is often overlooked, ANY Drain (Body) can be used against inanimate objects unless limited appropriately. I love Drain (Body) - it is hilarious. Also useful for killing things that, unaccountably*, are ridiculously tough, like tanks. There is nothing wrong with this power (Body only v non-living objects), legally**. It is a really easy way to destroy buildings, say. Even a small Body drain with a medium AoE (I probably would not normally treat a large building as a single object in this instance but as a series of support struts that the structure hangs from) will kill a very large building in a few turns, at most. Most inanimate objects to not have any Power Defence (which is why it is easy to kill buildings). You have to be REALLY careful with the 'Wall' rules here. By those rules, if you CAN treat large objects as a single thing then you only need something like 80 Body to destroy the entire world - this is entirely possible with a small, long lasting drain with AoE and megascale. This is what GMs are for. Body drain against focii is, typically, confusing. Normal Focii do not have Power Defence, or at least it is not mentioned if they do. unbreakable focii DO have Power Defence, but you have to guess how much. No clues, and no peeking. Give me strength... Generally though, a successful hit on a focus with a Body drain will destroy one power or the whole thing if you do 2x(active points of largest power/5) in Body in a single hit. Those are the rules and, where appropriate, my spin on them I hope that helps. *Well, I say 'unaccountably', it is not really: it is because there is a silly amount of power inflation with guns. Bloody guns. Mind you, 30 points of hardened resistant defence for the front armour of a M1 Abrams? There is not a weapon in the entire weapons section that can get through that. Still it only has 16 Body, so an average roll for 5d6 Drain kills it outright, on average so Caveat Magister. Like I said, I love Body Drain, but only when I'm playing. **However, what is 'non-living'? Is a robot non-living? What if it is occupied by an autonomous consciousness? Is a plucked apple non-living? Is a ghost non-living? Personally I would define a less ambiguous term of art.

We are, although most of us remember the good old days well enough to be confusing about them if you specify a previous edition

Nightwing is just dodging, Batman is just moving and using casual strength on the window. For some reason. I appreciate they are not the best examples you could find , but the move/attack/move/attack/move thing can be done with a multiple move-by. Point is you don't really NEED a trigger to do that, you just need a trigger to change how we already do it. It is a power to re-write the rules for how combat works, and I think that is why I don't like it. You could probably also do this with a held action so it look like you get several goes at once. That also requires the players to do a bit of in-game planning rather than just at the character build point. ...what your examples do show, very clearly, is why we have a rule that soliloquies take no time

Has anyone suggested the simple 'buy Luck, call it "Having a Plan"'? Probably...

I'd probably build a drain and a ranged aid and link them, see what that costs and base the price on that. It would be a ranged power. So, 10 + ((6*1.5)/1.5) = 16. Mind you you are unlikely to ever want a less than full power transfer so you might as well go for the full -3/4 and the cost would then be 15. Hmm. 15. Of course that is messy and gets messier if you start applying modifiers. probably want to limit the effect of the Aid to no more then the number of points drained, so that is another -1/2 (I'm assuming Power Defence is not totally uncommon). So now it is 14. Of course you might want to put modifiers on some of it, like making the Drain NND or AP, or have the Aid bit at 0 END... I like the decoupling because you can better define the power, which is good, but... No. No I wouldn't. What I'd do is re-write all the adjustment powers so you did not have some with range and some without because then they would be easy to compare without all these shenannigans.

Since we have decoupled characteristics, many characteristics only have an effect as a characteristic roll. Should we not be using an adjustment power to do this? Why do we need CE for this? Why would we? CE is much better than an adjustment power because adjustment powers specifically say that the penalties they impose go off last: you can link a mind control and a MDCV drain. Of course that is also a defensive characteristic so you halve the effect. Also I don't think you can affect combat values with CE; at least I can not see that in the list of things you can do with it. I mean, you can do it: you could theoretically do almost anything with it: fail a roll and there is no clear definition of the scope of the effect that can have. We know that it can make you fall over as that is a specific example. Not only that but CE lasts for a long while - use another more specific power and you need to spend more for the power to linger. Can you do it this way? Sure. CE is a pretty broad church though, with little real definition.

It could be; but that's part of the problem: the way you define the trigger massively affects utility. You could have 'having something in a grab or being in a grab'. Your definition would arguably only allow the trigger to go off once per grab, but a bit of rewording allows it to go off constantly as long as the grab is in effect. The breadth of the utility should be taken into account in the cost. It isn't.

Annoyingly vague. Yes.

You are going to have to sort out what that is supposed to look like yourself, because this quote/quote thing is driving me batty.

Hmm. If we were to apply common and dramatic sense, would we build a character who could hit as often as they are hit? Probably not. I would say this is definitely better built with a damage shield, with RSR to simulate that you do not always hit with your riposte. Sure you can build that with Trigger, but you don't need Trigger to build that, which is my point: what does it do that is unique? Anyway the automatic riposte is built with a natural limit: only works on a successful block - you can only do that so many times. ...but, again, what is this? You can pop smoke when you need to. Why should you be able to do that and not take other actions of a defensive nature - i.e. why should you not do this as an abort action? The answer would be that Darkness is an attack action. Again, apply common and dramatic sense tot eh build and you would never allow it. [quote I was confused by the use of trigger in the Potion of Giant's Strength example - I could see what the trigger was adding to the mix - the power already has charges and OAF and the trigger is quaffing the potion. Then I realised what it did was allow ANYONE who quaffed the potion to benefit from the additional STR. So it is quite a useful way of loaning powers to others - though I think those would, like the potion be best suited to continuing charge type situations - otherwise you get into questions of how long, or who pays the END etc (though I think that you could see SFX that would welcome those questions). Doc It doesn't do that. It is a power bought by the person who bought it and does not have UBO on it. All the trigger advantage does is allow you to ignore the substantial activation conditions that you are getting a cost break for.

...and this demonstrates a fundamental problem with the system to my mind: 1. This is the rule 2. It is OK to break it We either don't need the rule or we need rules for breaking it, and common sense does not cut it. What is special about a multipower of different guns that isn't special about any other multipower? The simple answer is nothing: the rule is you can not have a naked advantage on MP slots, so you can't. That may not make common sense to many but it makes sense for game balance, which is why the rule exists. If you want autofire on your MP slots, buy autofire for the whole MP. If you are going to exercise GM discretion, allow characters to switch off any advantage (they still have to pay full END cost and such), of house rule that a 5 point adder "Switch" lets you turn off advantages. Naked Advantages only really make sense in heroic games where you are not paying for equipment and you want to make something you pick up work better than the manufacturer intended.

I suppose my problem with Trigger in the RAW is that it fills in for other things. Extra SPD, Combat Manouevres, the application of tactical thinking during combat. We need something like this in the game so you can set up booby traps and the like, that makes sense, but I just get the impression it has become a panacea for all ills and a solution to more or less anything. I mean, if I can build Disintegrate for 20 active/3 real points, and it is entirely legal, in fact, much of the cheese is specifically authorised, there's something that needs seriously looking at. Can anyone give an example of something (other than booby traps) that you can only build with Trigger as it is? I don't mean a build, I mean a concept, like counter-punching, or dodging or whatever.