Sean Waters

Right.  Detect version.  First of all, what are you detecting?  I know that seems like an odd question, but it is the difference between someone being about to point a gun at you and someone being about to pull the trigger.

That has consequences, outside combat.  If someone is threatening you and your danger sense does not go off then you can be confident that it is a hollow threat.  It is not all about the full DCV.

Are you detecting potential harm to yourself or are you detecting the danger in a situation or are you picking up on something else entirely?  Would your danger sense go off if something completely random happened i.e. something that could not have been predicted.  This stuff matters, if you are going to know how the power should be run.

Can you, should you, even, be able to sense what is going to happen, or is it about reading what is happening?

What, when it comes down to it, are you actually detecting?

Ultimately, whilst it still needs defining, it is either a 5 point or a 10 point Detect.  I'd say 5 points if it is danger you can detect with your senses normally and 10 points if it is a more ephemeral thing that you would not have been able to consciously pick up on/would not have been detectable with normal senses.

OK, right, you know what you are spending on the base Detect.  Next: do you need adders?  That is, are you building this as an unusual sense or is it going to be  a Simulated Sense thing?  OK, so now I'm thinking that what we need is a Simulated All Your Senses version.  You should be able to detect danger if you see sunlight glinting off a sniper scope but also if you suddenly smell almonds, or hear the safety being taken off a Glock...well, whatever sort of gun Glock makes.

There is no clear way to link a Detect to all of your senses.  The best you can do is make it an Unusual Sense and fluff it from there.

So.  Adders.

You are going to need Sense for 2 points or you can only Detect Danger you are specifically looking for.

Then, right, there is range, specifically, do we need it?  Where is the danger?  Is it over there with the sniper pointing a gun at you or is it over here where the bullet is going to end up?  I can see arguments for either but, you probably need range. 

So.  12 or 17 points, depending on whether you use your normal senses to pick up danger or it is a sixth sense that still works if you are blind, deaf, insensitive and asnomic.  You almost certainly need Increased Arc of Perception too, which is 5 points for 360 degrees or 2 points for 240 degrees.

So, probably you need 17 or 22 points to build Danger Sense from scratch, but at least you know what you are getting.

Danger Sense, Danger Sense, does whatever a Danger Sense can...it is all Spiderman's fault, you know.

I thought I would try and be clever and build Danger Sense as an Enhanced Sense, but immediately ran into problems.  

First of all, what is it that you are doing?  Is this actually a pre-cognition thing?  If so, one way of doing this is Clairsentience: 

Precognitive Clairsentience (Touch Group), Persistent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (70 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only to detect Injury or Distress; -1), Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only the very immediate future (one phase); -1), Precognition/Retrocognition Only (-1), No Range (-1/2)

That actually works pretty well.  It only tells you if you are about to be hurt or otherwise distressed (like you have a sudden adrenaline surge).  You would effectively be in combat a phase before it actually happens so you would never be surprised.  It is always on, but I did not buy that as a limitation because I did not want it to be a problem.

I like that for a number of reasons:

1.  It is easy to administer.  If, in the next phase, you are going to be under fire, suddenly frightened or startled, the sense triggers.  Basically if you would know that you have been shot a phase from now, you can act on that knowledge.

2.  That makes the universe you are playing in non-deterministic, which I personally prefer.

3.  The cost works out perfectly.  Complete coincidence, but there you go.

What it won't detect is an attack that is going to affect you later, so, at least with this build, it won't tell you if you are drinking slow-acting poison, but you could tweak it so it did.  It will detect any situation in which you suddenly become very stressed, so probably also detects danger to those around you, or rather a dangerous situation you are about to enter.  Again you could tweak it to it just senses what affected you.  What will have affected you.

The other way is as a Detect.  I'm going to do that in a different post.  It may take some time.

..or the drunk GM.

Of course, you can my friend.  You're my best friend.  I love you.

I NEVER SAID THAT!  I hate you.  You're attacked by rabid chickens

What?  What?  Who said that?

God, I need a kebab...

On 2/19/2019 at 6:09 PM, massey said:

One of the things almost every one of my characters has is a Movement Multipower.  My trained martial artist characters end up with something like this:

11 point Multipower

1u -- +5" of Running

1u -- 11" of Swinging (defined as conveniently placed light poles, signs, etc, basically super-parkour)

1u -- +5" Swimming

1u -- +7" Superleap

A potential problem here, depending on your GM, is that you can usually only set the slots in a MP once per phase.  That might mean that, if you have already decided to put your points in running and the board under your feet breaks when you are only half way through your movement, you can't then chuck your keys in a bowl (Swinging) to get out of danger.  That is not a criticism of the movement multipower, so much as a way in which you may pay for the discount.

A far more abusive movement MP is this:

40 Get Out Of That Multipower, 40-point reserve

4f 1) Flight 40m (40 APs) 4

4f 2) Flight 5m, x256 Noncombat (40 APs) 4

4f 3) Teleportation 22m, No Relative Velocity, Safe Blind Teleport (+¼) (40 APs) 4

NCM slot and a teleport for when you get entangled or need to bypass a wall, stop suddenly or get aboard a Bullet Train.

Also has anyone done Tuneable Shields yet?  That normally really upsets someone:

48 Tuneable Shields Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 APs); all slots Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to

Activate; -¼)

5v 1) +24 PD, Hardened (+¼)  (30 APs); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -¼) 3

5v 2) +24 ED, Hardened (+¼)  (30 APs); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -¼) 3

5v 3) Resistant Protection (20 PD) (30 APs); Costs Endurance (Only Costs

END to Activate; -¼) 3

5v 4) Resistant Protection (20 ED) (30 APs); Costs Endurance (Only Costs

END to Activate; -¼) 3

5v 5) Resistant Protection (20 Flash Defense: Sight Group) (30 APs); Costs Endurance

(Only Costs END to Activate; -¼) 3

5v 6) Resistant Protection (20 Mental Defense) (30 APs); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END

to Activate; -¼) 3

5v 7) Resistant Protection (20 Power Defense) (30 APs); Costs Endurance (Only Costs END

to Activate; -¼) 3

Each slot is 30 APs and you have a 60 point reserve, so you can have two slots running at full or pick and mix against more versatile opponents.  They are all variable slots so you do not have to have them running at full blast.

I'd re-write the rules on Knockback.

What?

I would!

This is an interesting one because it does not come up often and does not seem fair.  If my Flash does KB then it does more KB for the same points as my Drain.  That can't be right. There should be a multiplier equal to the base points of 1d6 of the power/5, so with Drain at 10 points per 1d6 you would double the KB result before applying the -2d6.

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I subscribe to the 6e methodology that, if it will not be valuable in game, then Bureaucratics should be on the character sheet with "0 points" written next to it.

 

Limitations must limit, and complications must complicate, to be worth points.  The same should apply to things characters pay for - either the character benefits, or it is free. 

Again, hmmm...I agree, in principle, but...

Sometimes I buy LS: Immortal for a character because it makes sense given the concept.  I do not think it has ever actually had an in-game effect, but I still do it occasionally and that is fine.  It is only a few points and it makes me feel better knowing I have got it.

The other side of it is that you just don't know.  If a character has Bureaucratics then it might come up at some point, maybe more than once.  If you have written '0 points' next to it does it not then work, or it it effectively a freebie?

I've played characters where they have a DNPC and the first session the GM whisks us off into space, where the majority of the game takes place, leaving the other half back on Earth.  I did not know that was going to happen when I built the character, and the GM is hardly likely to spell it out because you would guess what is coming.  no one minded.  It was all done in good faith.  Another one is Hunteds.  Frankly they are a pain when I am GMing because I have normally written the plot well before the characters are created and, unless I am creating the characters (which I sometimes do), having to crowbar in a whole range of other NPCs to an already crowded game is a nightmare and I just don't do it.  Again, no one gets particularly upset or make people re-write their Complications.

This is way off topic, but I think that Complications that have an effect in combat should be worth a lot more than they are as they are almost bound to come up, and regularly.

1 minute ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So if I plan to  buy lots of skills., they should be Background Skills so I can enhance them all with the same skill levels, not have to pay extra for skill levels that enhance multiple characteristic rolls.  Especially if we remove PER, PRE attacks and Initiative from INT, PRE and DEX.

Well, yes, but then you might also want skill levels with Characteristic Rolls, because that will happen sometimes, characteristic bonuses to skills can be used for all skills you use in a phase, INT, PRE and DEX would (under the suggested amendments) all be able to determine combat order and some characters are not going to want a range of skills so might be better off putting points in one characteristic or another to indicate a base levels of competence with the majority of their abilites.

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

At present, each stat does two things, so my bias is to allow separate purchases, priced appropriately, rather than increase the already significant number of characteristics.

I was not advocating a 'Reactions' stat, or I did not mean to - rather removing the exclusivity that DEX has in determining combat order and allow the highest of INT, PRE or DEX to determine the combat order, so they all get to chip in and none is more important than another for that particular aspect of the game.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Are all skills now based on a CHAR roll, or none?  If none, DEX is Init only, INT is PER only (or eliminated entirely) and PRE is PRE attacks only.  I think your intent is that all skills at 3 points are a CHAR roll.

It is up to you when you buy the skill.  You either make it a Background Skill (I would prefer we go back to General Skill) or assign it to a characteristic, which would have to be the ones that the rules show are associated with that skill (so you can not assign Acrobatics as an INT based skill), or whatever you like if it is currently a  Background Skill, so long as that allocation makes sense, as judged by how high the GM raises his or her eyebrows on seeing it.

If it is assigned a characteristic, it becomes a skill that uses that characteristic, for all purposes, including Skill Levels i.e. PS: Doctor (INT based) benefits from skill levels with Intellect skills. 

If it is not assigned a characteristic then it has a base roll of 11 and is a Background Skill and you can apply levels that affect background skills.  

Generally, as most characters elevate most characteristics, skills will be assigned to characteristics but if you want a character who is not particularly naturally gifted but works hard then buy all your skills as Background Skills, you might want to not bother increasing your characteristics but buy lots of skills and Background Skill Levels.

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I would suggest that the GM should note that, or that you just put "Science", and assess whether these are appropriate to the manner in which he will run his game.  Perhaps he goes back to one player and tells him to broaden "Quantum Mechanics", with the understanding that he is a specialist within that field in Quantum Mechanics (maybe it comes up  once or twice in the campaign and he gets a bonus, or even auto-success).  The other player might be told to narrow his Science, or perhaps expect a -3 penalty on most rolls, but he can make rolls in all science areas.

 

Or maybe the proactive GM provides that list you set out and says "In this game, this is how you buy Science Skills".

Hmm.  Maybe.  I mean, just because someone has Bureaucratics on their character sheet, on the basis that the character is an Administration Assistant by day and a Caped Crusader by night doesn't mean that there should be a bit of plot in there somewhere that turns on filing a tax return.

I'd be happier with a small number of broad science types (like the ones suggested above), which caters for flavour but also allows for simplicity and ease of play.  Less work for the GM, more clarity for the player and if you spend points on something that never comes up in practice well:

1.  That happens with other skills too, and

2.  You should ask the GM for permission to spend those points on another skill.

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I think the price of INT, PRE and DEX should match.  1 point was my first view, but I moved away from that.

To where?  Maybe the problem is that we have these extra bits tacked on to INT, PRE and DEX.

I just really dislike Perception being linked to intelligence because what it SHOULD be, in my opinion, is the ability to sense things, not the ability to interpret things.

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson both hear the same sound, but Sherlock recognises it as the sound of a man walking with a slight limp, so probably the stevedore they encountered earlier who they lost in the maze of backstreets when he slipped and twisted is ankle, and Watson just recognises it as footsteps.  Perception should determine whether they can actually perceive something, all their other skills and experience should determine what they make of it.  I would re-define Enhanced Senses while I'm at it by saying that 'Discriminatory' means that you can determine some detail, roughly analogous to human sight or hearing, and Analyse would just go.  I have no clear idea of what it is other than an add-on that functions like another detect, and we have Detect for that.

EDIT: On Perception, I would make it a General Skill, which you could then base on INT if you wanted.  This would mean that intelligent people were not necessarily perceptive, but might be, and animals with low INT didn't keep walking into trees.

Right.  PRE.  I'd be happy for PRE attacks to go entirely too.  They are a mechanic that has been around since the beginning (I think) in HERO, but nothing quite like them exists in other games, that I can think of, and , if there is a need for something like that, it can be accomplished through role playing and social skills.  I was playing in a DnD game back at University and the party were being pursued by a big group of orcs.  The party were firing back at them to discourage pursuit and three of them happened to roll 20 on their attack rolls.  The orcs thought better of continuing the chase, even though, logically, that was very unlikely to happen again and they still easily had the numbers.  No mechanic needed.  If there were no PRE attacks in HERO, no one new to the game would ever notice a gap in the rules.  Also, whilst come players like using PRE attacks, they pretty much universally hate having them used on them.

DEX helps determine the order of combat.  Personally I don't think that is very important, certainly not anywhere near worth the characteristic costing double.  It only really matters on the first round of combat - characters with equal Speed then just act in order anyway.  You could easily replace DEX exclusivity with choosing the highest of INT, PRE or DEX.  DEX because it is an indication of your physical reaction speed, INT because it is an indication of your mental reaction speed, and PRE because it is an indication of the force of personality, which could be interpreted as willingness to act.

3 hours ago, Jagged said:

I am going to risk disagreeing with my referee and suggest that the correct solution is for either both characters to have "science" as a skill or none. 

 

Why? Because only the referee knows how skills will be used in used in their campaign and it maybe that "science" is as deep as it's likely to go, or detailed skills are an important part of the campaign flavour. 

 

 

Disagree away.  I am kind of with you though, but it does then require that you have a GM with a clear vision that has been adequately communicated to the players and the point of a rules system is to do some of that legwork for you.  Many disciplines incorporate other disciplines: it is almost impossible to do any science without some grasp of statistics, for example. 

My feeling is that 'Science!' is too broad, but Quantum Mechanics is too narrow.

Arguably, what should happen is that if you put 'SS: Quantum Mechanics' on the character sheet, the GM should note that and make sure it comes up in the game.  I am a lazy GM though, and feel I have enough to do.

It is always going to be a balance between flavour and playability.  Playability should generally win, IMO.  We already differentiate between Mechanics and Electronics as specific skills, Computer Programming and Systems Operations, Bugging and Cryptography, amongst others, presumably because we thing that is the sort of thing that might come up as a thing.

I'd be happy if we had something like:

Life Sciences - the study of plants, animals and microorganisms, medicine and genetics

Physical Sciences - the study or matter and energy and their properties and interactions

Earth Sciences - the study of the earth, the oceans and the atmosphere

Social Science - the study of  the psychology of and interactions between people or other social groups

...and call the job a goob 'un.

Anyway: I'll see you on Monday.

12 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

All of the knowledge-style Background Skills have the option to be based on a Characteristic Roll, for 3 points rather than 2.  Still +1 per 1 point after.

12 hours ago, Lucius said:

Probably for the same reason Knowledge SKill is.

 

Ah, now I do appreciate that, but the problem there is that skill levels with INT based Skills do not add to Background Skills based on INT, which, well, makes very limited sense, if any.

Also, right, why the flippety flip is Science a Background Skill and not an Intellect Skill?

Damnit.

6 hours ago, Jagged said:

I am sitting here screaming "No" at this thread. 

 

I think skill levels of all types can only be balanced within an individual campaign against the other players and to a lesser extent npcs. If one player takes physicist as an int based skill while another takes science, one player is at an immediate disadvantage imo.

 

I also think combat skill levels should be used to enable how a player feels their character should work. Like your defensive swordsman above. Once they start getting loads of skills I would start pushing to merge them into globals or characteristics.

 

And lastly as an aside: many moons ago, when challenged to a duel at a larp, I did parry thrown daggers and arrows. Skill levels or missile deflection?

 

The Physicist  v Scientist problem has a theoretical solution: if they are each trying to solve a Physics problem then the Scientist is at a -2 penalty because they are a generalist.  If they are trying to solve a Biology problem the Scientist is also at a -2 penalty but the Physicist either can not solve it at all or or has a penalty of -5.

We probably need something like the Language Chart for Science.  Hmm...

On 2/19/2019 at 1:44 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

You have invoked my Skill Level Rant!!!

So, what I’d probably do is this.

1.     Make DEX cost 1 point per point, even if that means stripping out ‘reaction time’ and having a separate ‘Initiative’ characteristic.  But it won’t: DEX is overpriced.

2.     Make the cost of all skills, including Background Skills, 3 points and 1 point for +1.  It needs to be 3 so you can still have 1 point Familiarity and 2 point Proficiency.

3.     Not have a skill level that gives you +1 with a single skill because you don’t need it – see 2.

4.     Make Perception a Skill and decouple it from INT.  Everyone gets it as a full skill naturally but you can buy it down to Proficiency or Familiarity if that fits concept.

5.     Cost +1 with a single Characteristic Roll for 2 points. Because EGO Rolls.

6.     Cost +1 roll with a small group (4 skills) at 2 points.

7.     Cost +1 roll with a broad group (INT/PRE/DEX/Background/Characteristic Rolls) for 3 points.

8.     Cost +1 roll with an additional group at an additional 2 points (so 5 points).

9.     Cost +1 roll with an additional group after that 2 point hike at 1 point per additional group.

10.  This would make an overall skill level that can apply to any skill or Characteristic Roll once per phase cost 8 points.

11.  Allow you to add OCV, DCV, +1DC damage per 2 levels, MOCV and DOCV the same way you can add extra skill groups, so an overall level covering anything at all would cost 13 points, although, in practice, I doubt many people will want all of those things, so their custom overall level will almost certainly be cheaper.

The maths is still not perfect, but I’m balancing that against the ability to define pretty much any combination of things you are particularly good at.  I think that would work better than what we have at the moment.

15 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

Now I find myself pondering a fantasy setting in which an insidious Godlike being whispers into peoples minds when they spend time in the light. It would influence people to fear the darkness, to be more prone to anger and paranoia especially about the darkness, and eventually drive them to wanting to dispel darkness whenever possible and attack those who dwell in darkness. Those affected could recover from minor exposure by spending a lot of time in darkness, and a but more effect could be countered by magic, but one could be corrupted beyond salvation.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

the palindromedary starts singing a Joni Mitchell song

 

 

In this country, that is also Brexit.

On 2/17/2019 at 1:21 PM, dekrass said:

Are there rules or guidelines out there for corruption by dark powers, or something like that?

I'm pondering a dark fantasy setting in which an insidious god-like being whispers into people's minds when they spend time in the dark. It would influence the people to shy away from light, be more prone to anger and paranoia, and eventually drive them to start sabotaging light sources and attacking people. Those affected could recover from minor exposure by spending a lot of time in sunlight, and a bit more effect could be countered by magic, but one could be corrupted beyond salvation. It seems I would need some kind of system for corruption, or insanity maybe? Part of why I'm not sure is that the way I envision the dark god is more of a force of nature than a creature.

 

And if there are no rules out there for this does anyone have suggestions for how to deal with such a thing? Thank you for any input.

In this country, we call that Brexit.

10 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

There isn't always a single relevant skill.

 

And then there are cases like this

3 4) +3 with Concealment (6 Active Points); Limited Power Only to hide knives (-1)

 

If I want to have a Skill, and then a bonus that applies only under conditions or is otherwise limited, I don't see an elegant way around using Skill Levels.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that Riding is DEX based and Animal Handler is PRE based and a Skill Level with both seems reasonable......

 

 

This is probably more of an argument for decoupling skills from characteristics than it is an argument for skill levels per se, even if that is what you would effectively end up with if you followed that route.

We have decoupled combat prowess from DEX.  There is no particularly good reason we should still use it as a base level of competence for both Acrobatics and Lockpicking.  There is also no reason why being good with animals should automatically mean you are also good with people or vice versa. 

OK, you don't have to buy high PRE to be good at people skills, but it is far and away the most efficient way to do it.  It creates a systemic bias.

Hmm.  Maybe the skill system needs a complete overhaul.  I need to walk the dogs....

On the cost of skill levels in combat, I think we may have it backwards.  If we assume that OCV and DCV are equal in utility and that they are costed at 5 points apiece i.e. that we have it right as Characteristics, then we can use that as a base for calculation for what skill levels should cost.

There are substantial differences between OCV and DCV.  For a start, OCV does not care if it is not persistent because, if you are in a position to use a power that can benefit from added OCV, you can always turn it on.  DCV, on the other hand has some issues if it is not persistent – in the same way that other ‘defences’ have issues, so you can get away with the -1/4 limitation for non-persistent on DCV, not so much on OCV.

If you buy OCV limited to a few connected attacks, say Punch, Kick, Throw, well, you are probably doing that because you mainly use those attacks: the effect is that the limitation does not actually limit you much in practice.  Even if the OCV is only applicable to a single attack, if that is your main way of dishing damage, the limitation is relatively insignificant – you are still going to be using it the majority of the time.

DCV is very different: if DCV only applies to HtH attacks, then you don’t get to use it half the time (in most games).  If it only applies to Punch, Kick, Throw, then it is even more limited.

I would suggest that, starting with 5 points for OCV, limiting it to a small group of attacks is, at best, a -1/4 limitation (making the cost 4 points) and even limiting to a single attack is probably worth no more than ½ (making it cost 3 (and a 1/3)) points.

DCV, on the other hand is going to get -1/4 for non-persistent and -3/4 (at least) for limiting it to HtH or Ranged attacks: we are starting off at 2 (and a ½) points for a DCV level against HtH (or against Ranged), maybe less.

You would struggle to get below 3 (and 1/3) points for OCV.  DCV will almost certainly be a lot less if similarly limited.

Skill levels as they stand can switch from OCV to DCV and can be used to boost damage.  Let us use the idea of the MultiPower framework to build this.  Active Point Caps on MP slots will probably artificially boost the cost, so let us consider Real Point Caps instead, to see how that works.

The minimum cost of an OCV only CSL for a single attack would be, giving it the benefit of rounding, 3 points.

The minimum cost for of a DCV only CSL for a single attack would be 2 points (5/(1+0.25+2), giving the penalty of rounding

The minimum cost of a Combat Skill Level would have to be more than the ‘minimum’ cost of a level of OCV.  The next round number up from there is 4, so let us start with that as a base: for 4 points you get a skill level that can be OCV or DCV against a single attack (although you could make them different attacks for the OCV and DCV).

In addition, CSLs can add damage.  Let us say that is worth another point (the cost of a slot in a small MP).  That gives us a minimum spend of 5 points for a CSL that can add to OCV or DCV against single attacks and add damage to a single attack.

The maximum, using the same sort of system, for unrestricted OCV and DCV plus damage options should start at 5 (unrestricted OCV/DCV), plus two (the equivalent of putting them in a MP), plus one to indicate adding a damage slot.  That gives a maximum CSL cost of 8.

So if we use basic, limited OCV and DCV as a base, add a couple of points to swap between them and another point to use 2 levels to add +1DC damage, we get this (DCV is always non-persistent)

Limited Group

2          DCV

3          OCV

5          OCV or DCV

6          DCV or OCV or Damage

Broad Group

3          DCV

4          OCV

6          OCV or DCV

7          OCV or DCV or Damage

All Attacks

4          DCV

5          OCV

7          OCV or DCV

8          OCV or DCV or Damage

For Comparison:

7.5       +1DC of 0 END damage (Based on Blast or 5 points based on HtH Attack)

9          +1 OCV and +1 DCV (non-persistent)

Even costing it this way, 16 points will get you 2 ‘All Attack’ levels, which can be any two from OCV and DCV OR +1DC damage, whereas just buying them straight, you get +1 OCV and +1 DCV and +1 DC.  The added utility of being able to have an extra point of OCV or DCV is pretty moot – put it in OCV and you hit more often, but you are hit more often yourself and the opponent is hitting harder.

Anyway, I’ve talked for quite long enough.

49 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

RDUNeil, would that mean Martial Dodge provides +5 DCV, only HTH, or provides +3 DCV against everything, and an extra +2 only in HTH?

 

Most games I have seen do not restrict the DCV gained from skill levels to ranged or HTH.

As I said, that is how we have always played it.

This picks up on the 'logic' for the restrictions the rules put on levels, or lack thereof.  I quite like the idea of having different DCV against different types of attack, but I'd probably do it differently: if you want to build a laser make it 3d6RKA with 5x2 point levels to up the OCV.  The rules read like a study in failing to avoid SFX thinking: bullets and arrows are fast so Ranged Attacks should be harder to avoid especially if you incorporate the optional rule:

As an optional rule, the GM can distinguish between a character’s DCV against HTH attacks and his DCV against Ranged attacks. In this case, a character cannot use a CSL to provide a DCV bonus against Ranged attacks unless the CSL applies to All Combat (a 10-point Level). More over, a character with a CSL that applies specifically to a Ranged attack or class of Ranged attacks can never use the Level to improve his DCV. This optional rule reflects the fact that it’s difficult to dodge a bullet or arrow, regardless of your expertise at shooting bullets or arrows. The GM should always use it when characters buy CSLs with Limitations (an accurate gun doesn’t make its user harder to hit, for instance).

Is a thrown rock as hard to dodge as a bullet?  Probably not, but they are both ranged attacks.

From a game point of view increasing the hit rate in combat will likely speed things up but also penalises some builds more than others as it drags them to the top of the bell curve: it doesn't matter too much if you are getting hit 85% or the time or 90% of the time but it makes a big difference if you are getting hit 40% of the time or 60% of the time.

4 hours ago, Christopher said:

Only getting at this game with 6E, I always asumed CSL are based on the cost of OCV and DCV. They are basically limited CV in a small power framework.

 

From that point of view it never made sense for a 3 point thing (3-point CSL) to give you the same benefit as a 5 point thing (1 point of DCV). There has to be some tradeoff of the reduced price. That is one of the core rules of Hero.

And depending how you look at it, a 10 point CSL (wich all others might be priced from) is already more pwoerfull as buying 2 CV.

I was going to hold off on a costs discussion until later, but...

10 Fighting Multipower, 10-point reserve

2v 1) +2 OCV (10 APs)

2v 2) +2 DCV (10 APs)

1f 3) Blast +1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½) (7 APs)

1f 4) Hand-To-Hand Attack +1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½) (7 APs); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-¼)

16 Points total

That is significantly better than 2 x 8 point levels in almost all cases because the DCV will apply to all attacks and is persistent. 

So, I was looking at combat levels and I learned something new.  Levels with ranged attacks do not add to your DCV against HtH attacks and vice versa:

Characters can use one CSL costing 3 or more Character Points as a +1 DCV against the same types of attacks (HTH or Ranged) for which the CSL could increase OCV. For example, a CSL with swordfighting could increase DCV in HTH Combat (against any type of HTH attack), but not in Ranged Combat.

I say I learned something new, I have no idea when that rule came in or if I have always been doing it wrong (it was certainly in FRED, but I don’t know about before that), but, basically, the way we play, a level on DCV increases your DCV, not just against some attacks.  It is perfectly possible that I did read it before and ignored it.

Let’s go with this though, and see where it takes us.

So I have a level with HtH combat, an 8 point level, and I decide to Dodge.  Dodge is effective against all attacks, but does my skill level improve my Dodge against Ranged attacks?  It would seem that it would not, because it only applies to DCV against HtH attacks.

I have a Multipower which contains (amongst other things) a HKA and a RKA.  I have a level with the multipower for 5 points.  Now according to the rules that level could increase my OCV with a HtH or Ranged attack, so can it increase my DCV with a HtH or Ranged attack?  That would seem to give added utility depending on how you define what your skill level applies to and I am not in favour of that sort of thing, and make a 5 point level potentially more useful than an 8 point level. 

Moreover, if I do allocate the level to DCV does it then work against both HtH and Ranged (because I could increase the OCV of either) or just one, depending, presumably, on which slot I allocate the Level to.  Would it make any difference if the HKA and RKA were not in a framework or if I were Multiattacking (with GM permission) using both the RKA and HKA?

The other effect this rule has is that it makes bookkeeping in combat a little more complex because you can have different DCVs against different attacks.  This feels like a win for ranged attacks simply because a lot of melee characters will want to pile on the DCV to avoid being hit while closing with their target, and this makes it rather more expensive to do so.

Thoughts?

So I was thinking about DCs and caps and such, and got to messing with an old spreadsheet I started ages ago and got this.  It is a very basic way of comparing two characters and how much difference a point or two of extra Combat Value or DC will make.  There are any number of problems with this approach, of course, as it necessarily runs on averages - it would be more accurate to actually do a breakdown of a hundred combats but I lack the maths and programming skill.  Nonetheless, it is interesting.  There are other factors at play in Hero too: every so often a roll exceeds the targets CON, which usually has a dramatic effect on a fight, or you just keep rolling badly.  Moreover battles are rarely one on one.  It is not a bad gauge of how long combats will go on for though and gives a feel for how tweaking one number or another might impact the game.

Most of the games we play in do have DC caps, and often AP caps too.  We are not obsessive about it, and you can trade DCs and CV to an extent, but generally in a 12DC game, most of the characters will do 12DC of damage or less.  

Say you have a 12DC game, and one character has a 14d6 attack - only a couple of dice but it hugely increases the chance that they will land a Stunning blow and reduces the number of hits they have to land to KO an opponent.  Upping OCV by 2 or 3 points has a similar but less dramatic effect: a similar reduction in the overall length of combat but without the increased likelihood of stunning an opponent.

Of course if everyone is OCV/DCV 8 with a 12d6 attack, you might think that it would get monotonous, but that isn't my experience.  Look at the sample superhero characters in 6E2.  The OCV/DCV assumes levels are put on OCV.

Taurus: 10d6 attack, 10OCV/8DCV, 20/10 Defences, SPD 5 and 60 Stun 20 Rec

Eagle Eye: 12d6 kick 10OCV/9DCV, 21/11 19/11 Defences, SPD 6 and 30 Stun 8 Rec

Hardpoint: 12d6 Blast, 10OCV/8DCV, 20/15 Defences, 5 SPD and 36 Stun 20 Rec

Maelstrom: 12d6 Blast, 11OCV/8DCV, 23/10 27/10 Defences, 6 Spd, 40 Stun and 10 Rec

Out of interest, two of the four have MPs.  Most one on one's between this lot would not last a full turn.  Well, not if they were going all out to take the other fella down, anyway.

I'm sure there was more of a point to all this, but I've written it now, so I'll post it...

Hero Combat Comparator.xlsx

On 2/15/2019 at 7:37 PM, Killer Shrike said:

I'll grant you are older, but I'd be interested in a system to quantify wisdom if you have one.

 

Anyway, we have indeed "known" each other for many years virtually, and you may or may not realize it but you're on my short list of people whose opinion on this game I most respect. 

I very much appreciate that.  As for a system for quantifying Wisdom, well, that is probably what honest obituaries are for.  I so want to put a smiley face in there, but, again, I'm not going to.  I could probably build something in Hero to make me look wiser, but it would almost definitely involve Mental Illusions.

On 2/15/2019 at 7:37 PM, Killer Shrike said:

 

I'm ok with that; I tend to distrust people who "smile too much". In all seriousness, I did not mean to offend with terseness; I assumed that your long-demonstrated thick skin and long familiarity with my communication style would be sufficient for you to take me at face value in asking a clarifying question. So, apologies, and in future I'll refrain from posting if I don't have the time to be less direct / terse. 

No need to apologise to me: it wouldn't be half as much fun if we couldn't have a frank and honest discussion or were worried overly much whether out opinions and way of expressing them might offend anyone.  It's been a weird week: I became a grandfather.  Normal service will be resumed soon.