mhd

Hmm, is END Reserve really something that fits well with the background? Looking at the steel users, activating your power (consuming one unit of metal) gives you the following: - Detect metal, constant - Ability to push/pull metal, quite often until time runs out So letting each push/pull/shoot cost END reserve goes against the fiction and requires book-keeping, plus you'd need some weird "only works while still points in END reserve" limitation for the constant power (which most metals have, IIRC). What about Time Limit, IIF(expendable), Extra Time on the Multipower pool? Both END Reserve and Multipower have issues with true Mistborn, by the way, if you put every metal into one pool. So another argument against that.

I always thought that TES had some great visuals and an interesting system for a video game, both of which aren't really that interesting (to me) for a tabletop game. Just like I'm quite fond of ability trees and random, frequent loot when hacking through some diablo clone (which seems to include ALL THE MMORPGs), but couldn't be bothered to sludge through that as a player (D&D 3E was bad enough). So Ultima was basically my one-eyed dude amongst the blind here. Britannia might not be the most exciting setting, but it beats Tamriel (again, ignoring the graphics, which aren't really that easy to translate to a purely verbal experience). What I've seen of Dragon Age didn't particularly excite me, either. Okay, elves are in ghettos, wizards are under watch of the Popethe church of whatever, but otherwise it's bog-standard quasi-medieval fantasy. Plus bad French accents. Note: I'm very bad at finishing games, so I can't talk about part 2 or 3 except from what I've seen watching my more zealous friends. I had the same problem with the Witcher series, but at least there I read some books ages ago. Setting looked more interesting, mostly because the premise was interesting (and exploitable) and because fantasy games often ignore the slavic parts of myths and medieval lore. The rest of the current RPGscape seems mostly focused on licensed stuff or "retro" experiences. So, no big conversion targets I can see. Haven't played that Baldurs-Gate-with-numbers-filed-off one that came out recently, though.

At its core, Focus means "you need some physical stuff to use your power" and Charges means "you can only use the power a few times per day". Often they're independent, sometimes they work together. A D&D wizard can use his Fireball spells 3 times per day and needs some bat guano (expendable focus) for it. To shoot someone, you need a gun as your focus and this has 1-100+ charges. To stab someone, you need a blade as your focus. No charges there. If my blaster superhero can go "nova" sometimes but needs a long time to recover from that, he might have "1 charge" for that, but no focus here. This can get rather fuzzy, though. We're not just talking about some story background after all, but a rules-based limitation, i.e. something I get points for. If it really isn't constraining the use of your powers than you probably shouldn't use it to make the power cheaper to buy. And whether that's worth it, really depends on the circumstances. Ammo is a good example. If you play in a superhero game where you have to pay for everything and write down your Peacemaker as having six charges, constantly reloading that is probably abusing it. The here should buy enough ammo to last him a typical adventuring day (in this case, several "clips" of 6 charges each). For a HK game or character, it's still a pistol, but I wouldn't buy charges at all. It still uses bullets, but that's just flavor and doesn't really impact the game and doesn't limit the character. So regarding Allomancy, you need physical reagents and they only last for a while. Whether that's relevant for the game is another question. I mean, swallowed metal doesn't make your power use obvious and it's really hard to take away. So it's already an "Inobvious Inaccessible Focus", the cheapest kind you've got in HERO. If being deprived of that (by bad guys or bad availability) isn't a factor, than it's not really limiting. The problem with Charges is that it's usually assumed that you've got them per day. If that's okay for your campaign and getting it doesn't matter (or at least it averages out to that number most of the time), then use it. If this highly fluctuates, it can get quite hard to estimate the cost/benefit of this. Charges can vary from a huge limitation (I can only do this once per day and it only lasts a second) to a big advantage (I can do this rather often and it doesn't cost me any endurance). Go for the past of least resistance. If it's headache to figure this out, simplify the power. If a guesstimate is good enough and it doesn't change the point costs that much anyway, just pick X charges and wing it. For a game where nobody ever actually plays out the metal acquisition, having a different number of charges might be a good way to simulate the different levels of availability. Iron could have 10 charges, gold 5, atium 1 (or 1/week). Well, I think a Mistborn could just have all the metals in one Multipower. Technically no difference, although you might want to stick with a Metal == Multipower setup if you really want to make Mistborn players pay for their abilities. I agree that that would probably be too expensive, a middle ground would be allowing the Multipower for all metals, but creating a perk for being a Mistborn. I'll try to illustrate the power level problem a bit more, although I'll have to go with something more generic, as I'm at work and thus don't have my books (HERO or Mistborn): Let's say you want to recreate a psionic from some TV series you liked. In that, they can manifest telekinetic "bullets" that can smash doors and throw people across the screen. They can also lift objects, but that's more straining and they're barely able to lift a person with that, certainly not throw them across a room or push a carAirGlider out of the way. So you buy your multipower and size it enough to contain the push: - Tarxarian MindWarrior (Multipower, 40 pt reserve) - Cost 40 pts. + MentalMissile: Blast 8d6 (40 active points) - Cost 4 Now you need to add the Tarxarian ForceLift. Going by your source, that would be Telekinesis 10 (Concentration, constant: -1/2, increased endurance x 2: -1/2), real points 7 so a Cost in your Multipower of 1. But due to rounding, for the same cost you could get rid of one of the limitations and still just pay 1 point, even though the actor playing R'on Ka'Zeel, the Tarxarian first officer is really hamming up the grimace and uses lots of artificial sweat on the TV show. Or due to the multipower, you could get superhuman telekinetic strength for a few measly points more (strength 25!). Due to what HERO considers important and how the system adjudicates costs, you might run into something similar when you put allomantic powers in a Multipower framework. So my warning/recommendation is working from what you want to simulate and not strive for game/system efficiency. I think that's more fun in the long run.

I'd go with IIF (expendable, recovery depending on the metal), but whether I'd use Charges would depend on how "narrative" the game is. If they actually have to take care of their metal vials, I wouldn't use it, if it all happens in the background and you're assumed to have a certain amount of metal in you each day, then go for it. Other than that, the basic setup looks like a good use of a normal Multipower setup. If you intend to stick close to the source, I'd definitely pay attention to the individual power levels, though. So you need X points to properly emulate power X'. That also means that now you've paid for this, and thus you've automatically got X points for power Y', although a mere Y points would be enough of it to do what they did in the novels. I'd recommend against going all up to 11 here. Generally HERO costs will wreak havoc on some assumptions the players might have, as not every metal will cost the same in HERO. Jumping around by using some coins will be quite cheap, mass mind control will be prohibitely expensive, even if it's rather focused.

Given the usual divine structures of fantasy universes, I think that's a bit bland and economically unsound. You're probably better off with a RuneQuest-like cult structure, where you get big, one-time spell effects. Gives you a reason to chose that particular religion and to come back regularly. First one is free, of course. I'm not a big fan of evident divine influence in general, though.

Are the bearowls what they seem?

I think that was Mao. Your go-to guy for medieval weaponry

Other Space. Yahoo's sci-fi comedy that isn't quite sure what it's supposed to rip off most and has a captain more annoying that Zap Brannigan. But on the other hand: Joel & Crow are back!

Says so explicitly: 6E2 50: A character Surprised while out of combat is at ½ DCV and takes 2x STUN from the attack; moreover, the penalty for any Placed Shot is halved. Although I'd say the most "classic" hobbit stab would be Merry vs. the Witch King of Angmar, which wasn't really out of combat…

One could probably do worse than pick up a weird, discredited economic theory and then base your theology on that. If you find one. It seems that even the weirdest theories seem to have a surprisingly large number of adherents.

It was just a crappy box, with a bit of terrain, some markers and a measly booklet. But to be fair, the main part of a Diablo conversion would probably be three hundred pages of random loot.

The problem with this exact point value is that your added points of standard effect aren't always the same value: For your first 20%, you get a +4, for 40% you get +9 etc. If I want to be truly correct, I probably couldn't just say that "for each X you get +Y", but to give the exact point values for each increment. Given that there are only five, it's still a surmountable effort

One thing that always bothered me a bit was the need for multiple rolls with some powers when combined with RSR and that the skill roll doesn't matter all that much, it's just binary. But APG I has the "Proportional" modifier, which sounds quite useful for that. So I'm thinking about combing that with standard effect, so that alll I need to roll is the skill roll. Just wonder whether I interpret that the right way. So let's say I've got "Mind Control 8d6; RSR(proportional; +20%/200% max) +1/2". 60 Active Points, standard effect 24. (RSR is -1/2, +20% is "1 less limitation", so +1/2, right?) Now for every point I'm below the -6 skill roll, I get 20% of active points. I assume that includes the +1/2 modifier. So I get 12 points of Mind Control (4 point standard effect), or 24/5 -> 4.8 standard effect points (rounding down would seem fair). In the end it's a -6 roll, if I just make it, I've got a 24 vs. EGO result, for every point I'm better than required, I add 4 points to that. So, how many mistakes did I make?

Well, a guy's gotta eat, right? In a RPG setting, quite often people get something out of this deal, too. Like being saved from obliteration from the hordes of Kaos. Or nifty "Summon Spectral Hammer" spells. And whether that's true or not, one could always invoke the "I'm beyond your petty mortal ideas like 'good' and 'evil'!" trope. I mean, they did see those C-beams a-glitter and all that, and we're just monkeys with snazzy mi-partie clothes.

Well, there was this one TOS episode about Apollo Note that I was just adding my two bits about the matter of definition. In game settings, I'm actually a big fan of the "spiritual leeches" concept. Adds a gamist element to it, moves deities into something easily comprehensible by our modern, materialist, capitalist views. And it just works great if you've got a whole bunch of gods, maybe even competing (literally!) pantheons.

What need does God have for a spaceship, erm, worshippers? I know this is a common thing in RPGs, but I don't see an inherent need for the power of the divinity to derive from followers.

Which doesn't simply transfer into wounds, even if it's a spherical knight. Concentrated work on one spot hurts a lot more than the same amount spread out by the armor. And good armor was pretty fantastic at that. And of course, you've got your redirection and absorption before that, due to the shape of the armor and/or padding. Sure, that stuff is quite hard to penetrate, but it's not like blunt trauma is the easy alternative, it's pretty great against that, too. Armor gaps are probably a better idea, statistically speaking

Although a lot of the "blunt trauma" faction also seriously underestimates the capabilities of medieval armor to dissipate force. Just smashy doesn't do it, unless you just want to knock your enemy down or off his horse.

Yet they were estocs. I'm not saying that weapon categories aren't fluid, I'm just saying that given the armor people at that time were facing, choosing between an estoc design and e.g. a scimitar-like blade was just how one would look at court, which your original comment sounded a bit to me at the time. Weapon and armor selection in fantasy RPGs is ridiculous anyway. And HERO seems a bit ill-equipped to find justifications to tone this down. If we'd even want to. Conan with a rapier ain't wrong to me Regarding speed, it's not just about the time difference between two attacks, of course, but also between attacks and parries, feints, different angles etc.. So being "fast" might also be expressed as a CV bonus. As some sort of statistical value, of course, making it dependent on prior actions and circumstances is waaaay too silly. Nobody wants combat tables with different modifiers depending on distance to your enemy, whether you blocked last turn etc. I once played a game that made you cross-reference weapons to get attack/defense modifiers. Yikes.

Mechanically it has more to offer, sure. The setting itself, though... (CRPGs seem to operate on an early 80s level when it comes to settings and systems.)

Note that in RQ we have a combination of both size and dexterity based initiative modifiers, so there's the opportunity for this to balance out. If you just base everything on sheer speed, there's an element missing. Depends on how the reach rules are... Never mind that the "smaller/lighter" mantra fails in a lot of situations. A spear is faster between attacks than a machete. Which is why you'd want to machetes. Where you can add their initiative bonuses *ducks* Oh yeah, listening to knife nuts made me much more tolerant about gun nuts. M1911 fetishists have nothing on Fairbairn ninjas.

I don't quite think that e.g. the Estoc was mostly an aesthetic choice But I wouldn't really want to micromanage this too much, I'm definitely not going to create a table of the different game effects of swords according to each Oakeshott type... Actually, my ideal list would even be simpler and more formulaic than the default list, closer to the alternative size-based one in FH. Don't quite see why a hammer has a stun multiplier, but a mace wouldn't. Or swords and their OCV bonuses... So a "medium size stabby/slashy" weapon would have a given set of stats, no matter what it was called in real life. All the minor differences mostly boil down to personal preference, e.g. a weapon-specific CSL because a top-heavy curved one-edged weapon is just better for PC A, not inherently better than a double-edged straight one. Although I'm not quite sure whether I'd really consider an axe with a backspike to be functionally identical to a cut and thrust sword, despite it being the same size category, damage types etc. I've experimented with something that's actually a bit close to RuneQuest: Weapon specific critical effects. My current ad hoc version is a bit too specific, but I think boiling it down to e.g. "Slash" or "Impale" would work out fine. That would give an additional benefit to versatile weapons. As long as that doesn't lead to everyone carrying around glaive-guisarme-voulges. I wanted to do more with CSLs, but haven't found a usable solution. Codifying different maneuvers per weapon/style is way too much work and different OCV/DCV/DC ratios would probably be unbalanced or simply not granular enough.

Thanks to my players pedigree, that's something I rarely had to fight against: People who entered fantasy gaming with D&D 3E already favored lighter armor (thanks to the egregious use of stat boosters) and our own local fantasy game had excruciating armor penalties for most of its history. And then some larpers with bad backs Where do you actually see LTE penalties accrue in your games? Given the regular encumbrance rules and the usual PC stats, that would require quite heavy armor and/or long periods of exhaustive work. Do you run a lot of "Let's chase those hobbit-kidnapping orcs" scenarios or am I too lenient in applying the rules? But let's not digress entirely: My personal intention for adjusting weapons or fighting styles somehow isn't necessarily about giving daggers and halberds equal footing. It's more about the middle ground, where we're talking about e.g. axes vs. swords or one-handed vs. two-handed weapons. Or empty off hand vs. shield. Part of that is already covered by the core stats. It also could be expressed by e.g. limiting martial maneuvers or powers (e.g. no Martial Dodge for stereotypically "stand your ground" combat styles, no matter how the Thalhoffer enthusiasts might complain about unfair treatment). As always with HERO, there's more than one way to do it, all depending on how common some things are in your campaign, point values etc.. In some campaign it might just be that the fencing types are usually the ones with Lightning Reflexes or higher speeds. Due to it being tied to the PC and not the weapon, it might look less unrealistic... I think the bigger difference is probably stabby vs. swingy, not weapon length. Not that this makes it any easier on how to express this in game terms. Maybe it's time to rethink my stance on Martial Arts, as the different "Strike" incarnations aren't exactly bad for this -- defense penalties are yet another speed issue, this time not being able to switch fast enough between attack and defense.

We dabbled a bit with the Warcraft D20 game, and especially the second edition (i.e. the "World of Warcraft" game) was pretty great. Making the wizard dedicated to blasting really helped with some of the inherent flaws of D&D. But if you're just asking me and not my way-too-young-and-ignorant player base, thou shalt converteth Ultima. Which would seem pretty easy, given that especially its laster incarnations were pretty lightweight. A few magic spells, and I'd try to work in the Virtues somehow. No playable non-human races, no weird class powers, no umpteen magic traditions.

But it beats a sword in the gallbladder. I don't really see that restricting armor usage that much, esp. compared to societal constraints. Sure, tourney quality full plate might not be something your wear all the time, but if you're adventuring in a dungeon or venture forth into similar high-risk territory, why not travel with at least soldiery equipment? City and courtly scenes obviously are different, as are roadside ambushes. And the latter get tiresome pretty easily, and this time not for encumbrance reasons... IMC we ditched the hit location rules, so armor is definitely on the awesome side for us, too. All things considered, the heavily armed and armored fighter is the best deal, I definitely don't want or need to put Steve Smallsword on the same level. In the last campaign, I basically said that only certain styles (favoring unarmored) are likely to produce fighters with a SPD value higher than three. This time we ditched SPD and don't have a lot of points going into powers, so some minute adjustments elsewhere are being considered. Our setting's original rules actually did have initiative modifiers, so that's been brought up at the table. Then again, it also had rather elaborate distance class rules... Theoretically Endurance is also part of the "weapon speed" cluster, although I don't see that working out at all (I'm this close to ditching END altogether for lack of benefits in a mana-pool-magic heroic game) Mathematically the same, and bonuses are just more, well, positive sounding. My current line of thought would center it around 0, so both bonuses and penalties.