Sean Waters

I like it a lot: it does make for a more 'storytelling' approach to gaming. One issue though: 'Establishing a Detail' might well undermine character builds that rely on detective skills, favours and contacts - if you can just pull one out of nowhere, why pay points for the privilege?

Killing attacks and Mental blast both do STUN - I was not suggesting coordinating a damaging attack with Telepathy, although I can see where that might have arisen - but I was just noting that they were both (small t) telepaths. The rules say that mental attacks that do damage can not generally be coordinated. That makes no sense to me as the target is still feeling stun damage. Let us ignore that proviso for this discussion. Coordinating an attack is, I think, a massive advantage as it makes a STUNNED result very likely. It should not therefore be trivial and, from a gameplay POV should not be something that teams routinely spam: if a tactic is so effective that it is used all the time then the balance is wrong. Funnily enough it is hardly ever used in our games, but that is because of an unspoken agreement that if the PCs don't abuse it, the GM won't either. So, yes, in example one, Charles would have to delay his action as Wolvie can not know when he is going to act unless he is cued. So, looking at Surrealone's examples, in the first instance, Charles (who has high INT, presumably) is making a PER roll complimentary to a Teamwork roll. Bear in mind there is no 'downside' to making a complementary skill check: if you fail, no penalty. So what we have is Charles making a single Teamwork roll, possibly at a bonus. That gives a better chance of success than if both Charles and Wolverine had to make a Teamwork roll to succeed. The second example is 'going on a cue'. Here PER is not used, so it comes down to a simple Teamwork roll by each. I would certainly apply penalties as C&W are using different types of attack and I would apply additional (and substantial) penalties because Wolvie can not perceive Charles' attack at all. The problem with going on a cue is that the opponent might well perceive the cue too and so I might allow them a PER roll with margin of success acting as a penalty to the Teamwork roll. Of course Charles could send the cue telepathically... That does highlight a problem though - there is no obvious way to counter a Coordination attempt. Well, maybe Dodge. Given its usefulness, there should certainly be some sort of defence or counter to it.

TK is not inherently invisible. The SFX could be anything but they are visible unless you pay more (hence the 5 points of invisible TK example above): if I was going to raise an objection it would be that it would be really difficult to sense where you are grasping and striking someone at a distance with any precision as TK does not have a sense associated with it: you can not feel what you touch with TK. This is, of course, a set of game rules and so inherently somewhat arbitrary. OTOH, it is going to play better if it makes some intuitive sense. To an extent there is no point in building this as any sensible GM would have the reaction others have and say 'No', but on these boards we like to test things to extremes because it does show up situations where the synergy is perhaps excessively useful.

So, some jiggery-pokery: All CSLs can add to OCV, DCV or damage, yes, even the 2 point ones. 2 point CSLs apply only to a single manoeuvre. All skill levels that add to DCs can also add to effective STR for holding, escaping and throw distance: obviously you can not use them for both increased damage AND increased STR – you have to ‘set’ them for the manoeuvre. 3 point levels apply to 3 manoeuvres you pick at creation. 5 point skill levels apply to all modified manoeuvres. You get a cost break on the total cost of -1/2. You might build a basic martial art around a few manoeuvres, say boxing: Strike Block Dodge All those you get for free. You then have to buy your skill levels. You’ll probably want to buy some 2 point ones with Strike first, say +1 OCV and 2 more for +1DC of damage, that is 6 points and makes a basic strike +1OCV, +1DC of damage. Then you buy a 3 point level with basic boxing (the three manoeuvres above) and stick that on DCV. You then have: Strike: +1 OCV +1 DCV +1 DC Block: +0 OCV +1 DCV Dodge: - +4 DCV That is 9 points, and you get -1/2 for ‘setting’ the levels, so it has cost you 6 points overall. That, of course is the same as 2x3 point levels, which would have allowed you to manage a better dodge or block but not as good a strike. That seems reasonably balanced. Offsetting For 1 point you get a new manoeuvre by trading OCV and DCV and DCs. Every 1 point penalty you take on OCV or DCV equals a 1 point increase in the other. Every 2 points of OCV or DCV (or one of each) equals +1 DC. You could also trade a DC for +2 OCV or DCV or one of both. You need to be a bit sensible with this: generally OCV, DCV and DCs for a basic offset manoeuvre should be I the range -4 to +4. Later on you have more points and want to get more manoeuvres. You add a 1 point Offset manoeuvre, which is a hard strike. You want +2 DC, and you offset that with -1 OCV and -3 DCV. You take that and Roll With punch (basic manoeuvre, so no cost). You then increase your 3 point level to a 5 point level to cover everything, and buy another 5 point level for OCV. Note that the 5 point OCV level has no effect on your Block as it does not use OCV, so you could nominate another manoeuvre, say trip, because you’ve learned how to foul too. Total cost is 5x2+3x2+1 = 17 points. This comes down to 12 points with the -1/2 That means your boxing package is now as follows: Strike: +2 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 DC Block: +1 OCV, +1 DCV Dodge: - +4 DCV Hard Strike: +1 OCV -2 DCV +3 DC Roll with Punch: -1 OCV -1 DCV Trip: 0 OCV -2 DCV Given that this comes to 17 points you might as well create a couple of other offset manoeuvres, or chuck in an extra 2 point skill level as it will not increase the cost. For 12 points you could have (say) 4x 3 point levels: this would let you have a dodge of +6 DCV, which is a lot, but you couldn’t do such an effective Strike. You could have 5 x 2 point levels, which would let you emulate the bonuses for the strike but you’d get nothing on anything else, or make any of the other manoeuvres much more effective. You could have 2 x 5 point levels and a 2 point level – well, you get the idea.

More thinky. So. There are two bits here, as has been said. The first is being susceptible to something that makes you prone. This is often a throw or somesuch, then, even if you are prone, there is the effect of being prone. To distinguish: A spider might be hard to make prone as it has 8 sticky feet, but, if made prone it takes full effect i.e. all the normal penalties. A T1000 can be picked up and thrown to the floor easily enough but can then morph so that being prone is not disadvantage. The first can be accomplished by a Breakfall roll, which allows you to gain your feet as a zero phase action and reduce throw damage. You could make it triggered so that it happens instantly rather than on your next phase, so that, in effect, you are never thrown. The second is just overcoming the penalties. Unfortunately the penalty is a halving of DCV, which is a pain as it means different costs for different people if you just buy it as penalty levels. Why should having a high DCV mean it costs more to overcome the effect of being prone? Bear in mind also that Clinging overcomes being made prone (arguably): in addition to the normal attack you have to make a STR v STR to snap them off whatever they are standing on. I'd either make being prone a straight penalty (-2, probably) to DCV or add a LS category: does nto suffer penalties from being prone.

I like the MA system in Hero; having said that there are problems. I like the idea of a 'shorthand' attack, built almost like a talent, so all you need to worry about is the cost, not the build. Mind you, I'm not sure we got the cost right. +1 DC is effectively +5 STR (0 END, not for lifting or throwing or jumping), so should cost at least 5 points, possibly 6. Martial Arts gets less useful, or at least less cost effective, the more manoeuvres you buy. That don't seem right. I do like it because it feels different from simply buying extra Strength and skill levels, even if that is (mainly) what you are doing. I would introduce a basic 'trip' manoeuvre to that anyone can have a go at. Then there is a 'target falls' element in the game that anyone can use so no need for fancy builds. I'd also introduce a basic 'choke', as anyone can strangle anyone, or try to. Matbe it would be an option for a grab to the head: you can make the damage NND, perhaps, if the target needs to breathe/circulate blood normally. I'd also allow anyone to try a kill strike. Anyone can eye gouge or try and break your arm. The only thing I probably would not put in Basic is Nerve Strike. Personal preference, but seems liek something that is NOT a basic types of attack Counterstrike seems to me like a limited attack: you only do the damage if you are attacked and the damage affects the target after they attack you. It is not a trigger because you can't do anything else while it is running. What you COULD do, right, is build all martial arts as skill levels (you'd need to add in that +1 DC can be used as +5 STR for holding, if that is not a rule already). How it differs from normal skill levels is that you have to define what you will be using the skill levels for, and you can not change that later. For this you get a cost break (Does not apply to 2 point OCV levels, obviously). This sets the tone for the Martial Art: balanced, high damage, defensive, precise. Everything is then a modification of the basic manoeuvres, with extra skill. Obviously you can buy additional skill levels without limitations to make the MA more flexible. That feels like a martial art but does not use any special rules. Except the new basic manoeuvres. And the one about DCs being used for extra STR. Apologies if someone already suggested this. Long thread.

Quick thought: Charles X wants to coordinate a mental attack with Psylocke. Psyclocke has a high DEX, Charles does not. Both have a decent INT though. They both have mental powers and the ability to sense mental powers. Should it be difficult for the world's premier telepath to coordinate an attack with another telepath? Let us assume that he has not bought Teamwork and nine skill levels in it, shall we? Would it be OK to use INT rather than DEX for the Teamwork roll? OK, now Charles wants to coordinate with Wolverine. W does not have mental powers or the ability to sense them and has a very high DEX. This is going to work against them. Wolvie can not sense when the mental attack is going to land, so has to go ahead and attack and hope that Charles manages to get in at the right time. The fact that Wolvie is so quick might make it more difficult to coordinate: it would probably be easier to coordinate with Colossus as he is slower and hits more predictably. How would you deal with that? Simply not allow it? Have just Charles make a teamwork roll, albeit at a penalty? Have them both make a roll (with a penalty)? How would you decide the penalties?

The sensible approach - ask the GM - is OK if the GM is writing the scenarios, but if they are using published work that they did not create they may not know what is coming up: I have seen multiple different approaches to implementing SFX. In addition you sometimes get PCs facing off against each other, and who knows what they have built. My solution would be to allow defences to be based on SFX rather than on specific mechanics. The precedent is already there with, for example, Damage Reduction. That way you can buy pd against 'disease' and it will work whether the disease is built as a physical attack, an energy atatck, a mental attack or a power attack: you'd still need resistant defences if it was built as a killing attack though. It would work against NNDs (not negating them, but acting as a defence in the normal way), and any other build you come up with. You would even get a cost break: somewhere between -1 and 0 depending on how common the SFX are. I can even see how it might be an advantage in some cases for very common SFX. Hero is about building what you want, and this seems an easy way to do that. OK, that is slightly off the addiction topic, but addiction is either a handwave (in which case basic LS: poison would work fine) or it is a power build in which case 10 PD against addiction (-1) would sort out almost any addiction attack, or at least blunt it for 5 points, which seems reasonable. It works, it is easy to understand and administer and it gives you more flexibility to define the character you want. Moreover it scales as opposed to being AoN, and that is a good thing in a point based system.

Maybe you don't make it a Flash, maybe you impose a PER penalty for each level you switch suddenly? That would mean that someone with enough sense levels is not going to be taken down by that kind of sense level switch: they will still be affected, but by much less. That also has the advantage that it does not trample into Flash or Darkness territory. The penalty could be (say) the difference in penalty levels x2, or difference in levels +2. It also avoids the potential problem that Flash Defence would probably not work against rapidly changing sense levels. You could buy PER (only to avoid penalties for sense level switches) to simulate a character whose senses adapt quickly.

Any of the chase scenes from Benny Hill?

Thank you That sounds good to me! No point in adding it twice, and it would take longer to recover from knocking yourself out from exhaustion than knocking yourself out from slightly exceeding your STUN total.

I know what you mean, but I'm not sure: DCV mods on MA apply to all targets, not just the one you are (say) boxing. Being able to block a punch would be of little use against a bullet: I'm not sure this is any different as you could use your TK to partially shield yourself and deflect incoming attacks, or just duck when you throw a MarTKial Punch. Also you apparently only need fine manipulation for stuff that requires finesse, the example given in the rules being Nerve Strike. You can 'punch and grab' with TK anyway.

Can someone explain TKMA to me? I did not wish to derail another thread with this; in answer to your unspoken question, never, but there is a first time for everything. OK, this isn't it then... So I build a Martial Arts Package with Martial Throw, Martial Grab and Martial Strike, say 6 extra DC. That comes to 34 points. I do not need Fine Manipulation because, well, I don't, according to the rules, to strike or grab. You might argue that I do for the throw as that requires precision, in which case I'll swap out for legweep, or splurge an extra 2 points on Offensive strike. Then I get me some of that TK, say 10 STR for 15 points. Total cost is 49 points. You might make me take TK as a weapon element, so we are at 50 points. I can do 10d6 damage at range for 1 END and all the martial arts bonuses. I don't have the range of a Blast but how many combats take place with the participants more than 150m apart? Hmm? So that is, unless I'm going wrong somewhere, and I probably am, better than a 10d6 Blast, even if I only ever use the Martial Strike. Or, you know, 12d6 if you were being difficult about me taking Martial Throw for just 2 more points. Moreover my Grab now comes in at 50 STR, which would cost me 75 points and 7 END per use normally (OK, I can not actually lift as much as TK would give me, but in combat, so what, most of the time?) I could get two more levels of Extra DC in and still come in under 60 points... So, I could also, for example, make 5 points of my TK STR fully invisible (for 15 points), and I can now do 9d6 on a target and neither they nor anyone else knows who hit them. I might as well buy that as a Naked Advantage because, well, why not? Is there a 'no more than doubling base STR' rule here? Am I supposed to apportion the extra damage as if it was bought with a +1/2 range thing, so I only get 4 extra DC? I know TKMA is optional, but this is why I'm unlikely to exercise the option. It just seems like a whole lotta something for nothing. OK, this is a reasonably extreme example, but it does scale: even bits of TKMA are very efficient. This is partially because MA is very efficient, but mainly because you don't have to apply a notional +1/2 to the cost for making your attacks ranged. I'm not sure what the answer is. I LIKE the idea of TKMA, it just seems a bit too good at the moment.

So, what Tasha said. IMO, the problem is that Hero does not play nice when it comes to defences. If you want to be immune to the addictive properties of substances, Life Support with a limitation (only to avoid addiction or other long terms psychological effects -2) is the very thing. That will cover alcohol and heroin and anything else that is a 'normal' thing in your world that you can get addicted to, at least chemically. It will not protect you from golf, for example. However, if there is a villain called Heroin whose power is a Mental Blast (or CE: Stunned) and who has a linked NND mental transform (either to add a complication or to mentally reprogramme you) then you are not immune to that power unless it is bought with LS: Poison as the NND quality. Alternatively, Heroin could use a cumulative Mind Control on you that is linked to her Mental Blast. I'm sure there are other ways to do it too. Point is that you probably need 10 points of Power Defence and 20 points of Mental Defence (only to avoid addiction -2). Even then that is not going to work if the damn thing is a NND or similar. You could argue that a power does beyond normal addiction so SHOULD affect you, but it is a little aggravating, n'est pas? you have a concept that you can not realise without a really convoluted and (probably) expensive build. You could go mad and buy 120 points of damage reduction (vs addiction), if your GM allows such shenannigans, but, again, expensive. What I'd do, right, is redefine Life Support. At the moment it is all or nothing. Why not allow it to be: 1. SFX based (it kinda is already) and, 2. Levelling - by which I mean 'not all or nothing'. Actually, what I'm thinking of is scrapping Life Support for most purposes. It would only be used for AON (All Or Nothing) situations: stuff that the game does not strictly define in terms of an attack power, so eating, sleeping, breathing, that sort of thing stays, everything that has a level goes. For example you can no longer be immune to radiation: enough radiation will still get you. So, we could build it with Damage Negation, I suppose. Allow that to work against SFX, including stuff like transform and mind control, if it fits the SFX, and Bob is the male sibling of one of your parents.

If I was going to re-do LTE, and I'm not, you understand, I'd have a new characteristic called FATIGUE. It would be to END as Body is to Stun, sort of. You would get FAT if you exercised too much in one go. It would be worth it for that alone. I don't like the LTE rules as writ because: i) They require a value judgement as to when they are used, that might have to be applied retrospectively. ii) They require a lot of tracking in terms of working out how much END per turn you are using. iii) They use REC as a marker. I'm in two minds about this, but it seems like it is doubling up a bit here as you also use REC for recovering LTE. Plus a higher REC means you GAIN less LTE, which feels wrong. Plus it works on multiples, which, you know, make the whole thing that bit more mathsy. On the other hand, it does not feel entirely wrong. Hmm. iv) they seem to be (mainly) for out-of combat situations, and would be more complex to apply in combat situations. So, jokes and critique aside, mechanics; untested, untried, barely thought through mechanics... 1. Every 5 points of END you use in one phase, you gain 1 FAT. This would be for a superheroic game; for a heroic game, you might make it 2 or 3 points of END = 1 FAT. This is the instant effort thing: break a sweat and you are into anaerobic respiration. 2. Every time you take a REC and are still down some END, you gain 1 FAT. This is the long term effort thing: you can run for a long while at a certain pace, but push it and you quickly tire. 3. Every time you burn STUN for END, you gain an equal amount of FAT. This one should be obvious. Now you have to make a decision how much of an effect you want FAT to have, because it can do one of two things, or both: 1. If your current END is equal to or less than your FAT, you are treated as if you have no END to use. OR 2. When you take a recovery, reduce your REC by your FAT. This is a bit more drastic, obviously. Recovering from FAT If your FAT is equal to or more than your REC, you reduce your FAT by 1 point for each 5 minutes of sitting round doing nothing more strenuous than eating and drinking. If your FAT is less than your REC, that drops to every minute. Adjustment Powers You can use adjustment powers against FAT. FAT is considered a Defensive Power, and has a notional cost of 2 points (so you need 4 points of adjustment to affect 1 point of FAT change). Bear in mind that (and this is the one place the joke does not really work), more FAT is worse for you, so a 'FAT drain' would increase FAT and a 'FAT heal' would reduce it.

Bump.

This sounds like one to add to the 'powers for the next edition' pile.

...also there is a really, really long activation time...

It certainly does v multiple attackers, i.e it allows you to ignore the multiple attacker bonus but my reading of it is that it has no effect on teh stun adding effect of a coordinated attack.

I don't see why not, so long as you can apply limitations to the appropriate skill level. The limitation would depend on how common targeted attacks are - we rarely use them as we mainly play superhero games. Also you might need to explain why it is not harder to hit the whole of a target if it is harder to hit the individual bits i.e you might just want to buy extra DCV. Most of the reasons it is difficult to hit the head (for example), like having chameleonware, also mean that you are more difficult to hit generally. I can think of exceptions, but they are a bit weird. Equally no problem with extra DCV (only v ranged attacks (-1/2)) I tell you what's interesting though, albeit a complete aside: extra DCV for the hex you are in. That makes it harder to hit you with AoE that is aimed at you Sounds like a Change Environment to me. Some sort of deflection field. There will probably be ions. The other thing you could do, right, whilst we are on the subject, is take the Automaton Power 'No Hit Locations' and put an activation roll or RSR on it. That could be funny.

So, should Occam have a beard?

OK: 1. Teamwork is not a particularly objectionable name, but if we are going to change it for the mythical 7e, let's call it the Coordination Skill. It is defined as being able to time your blows to hit either simultaneously or in a sequence, the effect of which is to allow you to use the Coordinated Attack combat maneuver. I mean it could get confused with PS: Fashion, but let's hope we've all grown up enough not to. To be clear it is all about the agility, physical or mental. Whilst DEX is a physical characteristic it also implies a degree of mental coordination, but see below. 2. INT is already taken into consideration in the Coordinated Attack as you either need to be able to clearly perceive the signals being given by the other coordinators, or you need to make a PER roll. 3. You might see EGO as mental agility, but to me that is INT - EGO is mental Strength or resilience, so you would not use EGO to coordinate an attack, ever: I would certainly allow an INT roll (rather than a DEX roll) to coordinate mental attacks, although that would depend on SFX. I would also allow the coordination of any and all attacks that are capable of coordination, although I might well apply some penalties to the roll for participants who can not perceive their teammate's attack. I might also apply a penalty for coordinating dissimilar attacks, so ranged and melee, physical and mental. That sort of thing. 4. I'd definitely be applying penalties for multiple coordinators: it is far more difficult to get 5 people to hit at the same time than 2. OK, the simple random roll does that to an extent, but it is more than that - I think that trying to get 5 to hit at the same time might put everyone's timing off. 5. It can not be 'Strategy' as that is an overall battle plan. 'Tactics' is closer, but I'd still go with Coordination Skill or, you know, Teamwork. There is no 'I' in 'team', but you can make 'eat' and 'me'. 6. As I said above, I think the effect is too powerful but also not useful enough - I would change it to simply reduce the effective CON of the attacker by 5 for each successful coordinator. This would have a couple of effects - it would prevent two attacks going from 20 for stunning to 40 for stunning AND it would allow attacks that would not even get damage through defences to contribute - it is not simply about taking multiple hits but also the difficulty in defending yourself from them and the errors that might force. 7. I'd definitely apply a penalty for failing the roll to discourage teams from constantly spamming it, say a reduction in your chance to hit or your defences, or even losing your attack if you fail by enough. I might make it take an extra segment, or require everyone to have a delayed phase. 8. Finally I would create some sort of defence against Coordination: something to reduce the chance of coordination working against you, or reduce the effect of it if it does. Possibly a Talent that applies penalties to coordination attempts and/or reduces teh effect of a successful attempt. I might do this through Defence Manoeuvre, which already works against Multiple Attacker Bonus, but is a bit all or nothing.

Coordinating an attack is all about hitting a target at the same time as another attacker so that you can add your stun totals to increase the likelihood of stunning the target by exceeding their CON. In addition the DCV of the target is reduced against any coordinated attacks (although that is an optional rule, so may not apply in your game) I think that coordinating is a bit too useful, personally, and I'd tone it down a lot if I were re-writing the system, given that Hero is more about thresholds than totals. Having said that I really can not understand the injunction against coordinating physical and mental attacks. On the one hand I would suggest that we should not be doing anything to make the Teamwork skill easier to use, and that it makes sense that agility is the skill category rather than intelligence because it really is all about the timing. The rules even mention that if there is likely to be a difficulty in perceiving a signal or cue then a Perception roll would be appropriate. Perception is INT based anyway, so INT is relevant in that way. On the other hand INT is often lower than DEX in superheroic games, so that would make coordination more difficult, which is good. On the gripping hand, we do not have hybrid characteristic based skills in Hero and I would be loathe to introduce them as anything other than a house rule or a complete system overhaul. As a house rule, I'd say 'go for it'. IMO Coordination should work by reducing the effective CON of the target by 5 points for each coordinating character after the first, with the proviso that the effective CON can not be less than zero. That feels useful but a lot less overpowered, especially as there is no downside to coordinating, and no way to resist it or avoid it, other than buying extra CON with limitations, which seems silly to me. Alternatively you could introduce a downside to trying to coordinate and failing, perhaps giving all the participants an OCV penalty on their attack. Part of the reason I do not like coordination is because it is powerful and, if you have the ability to use it, you might as well use it every time, and that just slows combat down if you are making extra rolls. Arguably those extra rolls speed up combat too as you will take opponents down more quickly. All well and good until it happens to you, eh? It is like critical rolls: there are almost always going to be more opponents than PCs over the course of a campaign. Moreover it makes building solo opponents difficult without making them look freakishly different from the rest of the campaign build guidelines.

One thing that has not been discussed is the bonus to DCV. I would be happy to expand 'Acrobatics' so that you could decide before rolling if you wanted a bonus to OCV or DCV (or even a split if you roll high enough). Mind you, it would follow the same rules: it would have to be a surprise of some sort, so you could not simply keep doing it. Maybe one bonus per combat, two if you are lucky. +1 bonus per 3 (not 2) you make the roll by.

If we didn't have to use advantages every time we'd have no need for naked advantages, well, other than trying to cram them into a multipower or VPP so that you are basically reducing the cost of building the whole thing, blast and all, in a multipower. That or you are gaming a Heroic game and want all your ammo to be AP. But we can't, and we can't find out why. Should probably cross post this to the 'Myth of Hero' thread as it is a good example of why some people find the game too complicated.