mhd

If you can, of course. In Heroic campaigns this might be a bit difficult, especially if your caps are set a bit lower than simply the usual human limits. This was actually one of the bigger differences between GURPS 3E and 4E, whereas they kept 20 as basically the maximum human achievement, they also positioned that most people tend towards the lower third of the 10-20 range. I think they even called that by some cute name like "cult of stat normalization". Part of that comes from the different buying system (3E gave you the first points beyond 10 a bit cheaper), but another is simply a consensus on a more realistic playing style. Both of which could easily be ported to HERO for certain campaigns. Or you could just take another step on the road towards no figured statistics and eliminate the attribute bonuses wholesale. As for simplified skill systems, I'm currently not looking into adapting this, as I'd actually like skills to be the primary candidate where points are spent, but in a system where either skills or advancement aren't that important, one might simply go with abolishing skills and just using skill levels as general "backgrounds". Cheaper if it's more specific, so "fire magic" costs significantly less than "court wizard of the gnomish burrows". Every background skill level just adds to the attribute base. Looking at other systems, cinematic GURPS had its "bang" skills, where you had e.g. "Drive!" which applied to all kinds of vehicles, repairing them etc.. Just cost a lot more and thus could be used alongside the normal skill system. In a highly cinematic game you'd just have a collection of bang skills, in more "normal" ones each character would just have a few, if at all.. In HERO, one could buy that as a combination of skill levels and maybe a perk to use each skill in a group at its attribute base? The recent Shadowrun revision has "skill groups", where you could have a base level for a whole skill category (ranged weaponry, science etc.), with the option of buying specific skills that exceed that rating. Expensive and rare, mostly for veterans who've seen it all or are just wildly talented. Reminded me a bit of the OCV+CSL system.

Reminds me of one of those cheap D&D books, where a reincarnated badger became something of a party member. Probably the first clue that the author was a bit of a furry... Reincarnation certainly counts as one of the first bizarre spells.

Just let me add that with "unified system" I just meant something where there are as few as possible orthogonal systems within the rules. HERO is pretty great in that regard, as almost anything can be broken down to simple Powers. It gets slightly hand-wavey with martial arts and probably some perk-based magic systems, but apart from that it seems pretty hunky-dorey. All kinds of power systems, special abilities of PCs and creatures -- no problem. This is why I switched over from GURPS, which has a greatly improved Powers system in its current edition, but also lots of old baggage when it comes to Magic and other subsystems. That's the major unified part, not having too many dice rolling conventions is another (cf. AD&D). And with little effort, HERO fits the bill. Now we're basically down to task resolution & damage, which makes me and my group really happy. I'm not particularly keen on trying to have unified approaches to resolving every task, i.e. no "social combat". Simple skill rolls for simple/lengthy situations, role-playing for the rest. Haven't met a "narrativist" approach that I like yet, so I'd much rather do it like HERO, GURPS, D20, BRP etc. Speaking of GURPS (which basically has identical skill resolution mechanisms), is it wrong to say that one of the core differences is that task difficulties tend to be disregarded or slightly lower in HERO, thus there's little need for a skill value beyond 13- -- thus creating the situation where this is actually quite the high end of proficiency? Which really boils down to simple GM styles. Just by presenting higher difficulties, my campaign should have little issues with 13- being a somewhat heroic starting value, but Tracking/Stealth etc. beyond that is still valuable.

Thanks for all the replies, there were some interesting points. And I think that, yes, looking at superheroic sample characters probably is a bad idea when you're looking at how skills would be distributed in a Heroic setting. And the "roll high" digression was surprisingly apropos, as my group switched over to that lately -- as nobody's really that entrenched in the system, it doesn't hurt and I'm a stickler for unified systems (which is my prime reason for using HERO in the first place). Gave us no problem that far, apart from the need to modify your HERO Designer print outs a bit for ease of reference. Given a high-CP character, the purchasing structure for a skill monkey really doesn't justify putting a lot of points in single skills, true. You're better off with some generic skill levels and good attributes. And as opposed to combat, you're rarely juggling points. You're defending and attacking at the same time, but it's rare that you'll be using astronomy and biology for the same action. Also, the HERO Skills book was added to the HERO Bundle today, and interestingly it does list a few options of stretching out the initial skill purchases for a while. We already did that a bit with familiarities and proficiencies, but it might be worth looking into. The current campaign started out pretty low-powered and almost every skill purchase was during play, so it wouldn't be too hard changing something. Regarding background skills, well, the free PS/KS ain't that bad. And with some GM generosity you could eke some mileage out of that, especially with the complementary skill rules. But I think for future campaigns I might steal something from recent editions of Shadowrun (despite my general animosity towards that setting): A free pool of KS, but with rather specific specializations. So someone might buy KS(dwarven swords) or KS(Capitalia downtown street gangs).

I always regarded it as "tell me by how much you beat 11+OCV". Just like with lots of skill rolls, where I don't usually tell them all the penalties beforehand either. At least that's what I used to do, for the past few months we fiddled with the maths a bit and came up with a unified combat/skill roll system where rolling high is good. The only thing that this leaves out a bit, is determining critical hits. Which I simply solved by not using them in the first place.

As a relative new-comer to HERO (at least when it comes to actually playing it), I'm still a bit confused about skills. Sometimes it looks like they're a bit of an after-thought. Which is kinda okay-ish in a superheroes game, but somewhat surprising in more Heroic variants. Maybe I'm just imagining things or extrapolate too much from sample characters, but it seems that leveling beyond your base level of competency is rather rare. Granted, given the bell curve and some overall skill levels chances of success are probably high enough. And combat skills (where improvement/high competency would seem valuable in a game) are a separate entity anyway. Another exemption to this rule are Power skills, which generally are pushed about as much as possible. Besides not wanting to waste an action in combat, the latter might also be exacerbated due to the fact that modifiers seem to be harsher than for other skills. Now in other level-less games, skill rolls are often the primary subject for character improvement, and I wonder how people treat this in their Heroic games. How often do you put additional points in skills beyond simply acquiring them, even for characters that aren't hyper-focused (e.g. "normal" characters improving Stealth, not just your party's ninja). The system is flexible enough to accommodate all kinds of playing styles, don't get me wrong. It's easy enough to just introduce enough difficult checks so that high skill levels are useful (cf. GURPS, where 20- skills aren't that rare in campaigns with a power level comparable to 175 CP characters). One might even flatten out the initial skill acquisition a bit, if variance on that scale is important enough. Easy enough to do and with few risks to impact game balance, as the skill system is rather self-contained... So I'm really not complaining, just wondering about playing styles, game history etc.

My suspension of disbelief balks at the thought of a slavishly devoted honey badger.

Well, it worked for Hamlet. On second thought...

Yeah, I'm mostly worried about balancing it against other magic using traditions, especially ones that use VPPs or other "normal" methods. It doesn't look too bad, as what you save on initial points you'll lose in flexibility. It's not entirely different from an unarmed MA fighter vs. someone who just bought a greatsword.

Well, in my current campaign, they don't even start with a dagger, as they're all stranded on Dinosaur & Zombie Island. So that's not really a useful baseline. But I'd envision that in a "normal" campaign starting out with a spellbook shouldn't be a problem, either. It all depends on the campaign style. For a highly Sword & Sorcery campaign seeking hidden tomes might actually be required, but if you're going the default D&D-ish High Fantasy path, you'll get a few spells in the beginning. But just like the fightey dude doesn't get his Vorpal Sword from above his family's mantlepiece, your fledgling apprentice won't enter his first adventure with Ebenzers Evocation of Everlasting Earthquakes. This variant wouldn't make balancing fighters and wizards any more or less problematic.

Personally I'd give the more "statuesque" women (and men) a higher PRE and lower +SA, whereas it's the opposite for the "merely" cute, sexy and/or voluptuous.

That just brings up the question about how someone with 30 PRE would look, and this probably varies even more than "Striking Appearance", where at least we know that it's a visual thing. Tolkien's Balrog isn't in my spank bank. But beauty, being in the eye of the beholder, is rather subjective. I don't think we can just say that "+6d6 equals Monica Bellucci while you're hopped up on aphrodisiacs". Given the "human limits" thing, we might say that anything beyond +2d6 is probably very rare. +3d6 would then be famous models/actresses/etc., i.e. people who make a living by their looks, +4d6 is Helen of Troy and beyond that it's close to a supernatural compulsion.

Fiddling with magic systems again, and I couldn't find any "previous art" to one weird thought I had: What if we treat spell-books like regular equipment, e.g. weapons? In your usual quasi-Vancian HERO adaption, you'll use a spellbook as an focus needed to "recharge". Or maybe a spell library as some generic requirement for your VPP, not necessarily all on hand. But what if we actually put the power into the spellbooks themselves? Just like a warrior doesn't have to pay the 15 points for his greatsword (or even a larger sum for his Greatsword of Ogre Decapitation), your aspiring mage wouldn't have to pay for the Sleep and Fireball in the heavy tome he has to lug about all the time. And just like a warrior isn't just defined by his equipment, it really matters what you do with said book, i.e. what additional abilities you've got (similar to CSLs and MAs). The first thing that would come to mind is the basic enabling ability. For most campaigns it probably doesn't make sense that everyone can cast every spell (or even any spell), so some keystone power would be useful. Maybe it's a "read magic" ability/cantrip (Detect Meaning of Magical Writings?). Or the necessary mana to fuel it (Endurance Reserve)? Maybe you need a huuge brain to wrestle that spell into submission (all spells require Int >= AP or RP -> +X INT just for said purpose). Or maybe there's some Elder/demonic insanity drain involved (Power Defense to resist that). Or simply just a "Learned Wizard" perk... Then we'll get to boosters. Great, now you can read that Galtian litany from your grimoire, but enemies rarely wait idly while you do that. So a Naked Advantage to buy off the Extra Time? Possibly others to buy off other limitations or metamagically change some effects. Finally it's quite likely that such wizards would still have some fixed powers, i.e. cantrips or more powerful spells they've learned to cast without requiring a book. Any thoughts on that? If the prerequisite and the basic spell book limitations aren't too generous, I think this could be balanced enough.

Airships enjoy some popularity, especially if you're veering towards steampunk or JRPG territory. And of course the Princess Ark series published in Dungeon magazine for D&D's Mystara setting. Basically you are limited to ships, as nothing else is big enough in a quasi-historic setting. For anything horse-drawn, the animals themselves would seem more important than the vehicle itself. You could theoretically have a coach that's used like the A-Team van, but I've never encountered anything like this in fiction.

Well, you can do some experimental archeology, especiall if it's just about damage and not usage. But in a game where you don't separate between thrusts and cuts, that's probably all within the margin of error, never mind the variety of weapons that would fall under each single item in the tables. (What's a "short sword" anyway?)

I'd determine what they're actually better at in-game and work backwards from that. But only if it is significant, a lot of the differences just aren't caught by even a +1 modifier. Even within "human" weaponry there's a lot of difference that often isn't reflected in game stats. If it's just better forging techniques and not something near supernatural, I'd personally just go with increased durability (if that comes up), and of course they're worth more. In certain situations using Dwarven weaponry might qualify for a PRE bonus, too. I'd probably need a bit more to mess with OCV or Min STR...

Are there any really bad sites focusing on one system? I think most of arguments arise out of the usual setting/system/edition holy wars. This forum only has the last of that unholy trinity, and that mostly in an evolutionary sense, i.e. no big upheavals that resulted in a different playing style or target demographic.

Because that's still one data point for one animal, in one environment (and one that's unusally devoid of distracting smells). Do you really want to extrapolate generic modifiers based on this? One question that would immediately spring to mind is how long it takes the bear to accomplish this task. Is he immediately aware of all kinds of smells within a certain range? Then okay, that might qualify as Telescopic. But if it takes a while for the seal's smell to waft into his direction, then I'd just call that a special case of Tracking that just doesn't depend on a spoor right in front of the tracker. As smell for humans is a bit vague and hard to discuss, never mind that most animals are immensely better at this, I'd be very wary of micromanaging capabilities and applying modifiers.

Well, if someone can confirm that the "7x" difference is about smelling dead carcases, I'll leave a content man. I didn't mean to imply that, that "build" was intentionally far out hyperbolic. Maybe I should've exaggerated more to make this obvious enough... The point being was that while distinguishing colors probably is a valuable ability in-game (and thus not being able to might qualify as a Complication), being able to do that on a very fine level probably won't come into play. And us humans are really great at doing that, by the way. Probably the reason why we have nightsight tuned to green-scale instead of gray-scale and definitely the reason why the extra bit in a 16 bit RGB triplet went to the "G" part. My point is that not every measurable difference (no matter how big) is significant when viewed by a game-play lens. And I'd still like to know where this "7x" comes from. Found it all over the 'net, probably mentioned in some documentary. My "citation needed" isn't about disbelief here, sorry if it appeared that way. "Apocryphal" probably was the wrong term, but zis language of yours haz vay too big vokabulary, ja?

I'm kinda-sorta ok with the weapons, but the PD-based weight of armor rubs me the wrong way. And bows are too good, but that seems a generic Fantasy trope.

Yeah, and according to some rather popular site, ninja are mammals. (NB: "Ultimate Bear" is a HERO source book I'd buy) All those apocryphal quotes still don't mention any kind of criterion. Let's say I'm mud-wrestling Cindy Crawford. Now a swarm of mosquitoes happens to drop by, I get stung seven times, she only once (she's perfectly, deliciously covered in mud, I, like the legendary Siegfried, have some patches of skin uncovered). Saying that I'm "seven times more attractive than Cindy Crawford" would technically be correct, albeit in a very limited way.

Sure, but unless your campaign is very fashion oriented, distinguishing "chartreuse" from "pistachio" probably isn't. PER +3 (only to distinguish shades of green) would be a bit silly to note down for every human character...

That was in reference to the OP, so out. Depending on the exact circumstances of "better", there are probably different ways of modeling it. And for senses, sometimes it just doesn't matter at all (my ability to see colors better than a cat doesn't really come into play, mechanically. And differences in analytical capability aren't modeled very well, either)

Well, HSMA 97 explicitly states that both the Follow-based maneuver and the maneuver it follows may not occur on the same phase, so the latter seems like a definite no-go.

How do you measure sense of smell? "7x better" regarding what?