mhd

I always thought "Jagerbomb" sounds like a super villain name…

Anyone played Evoland? It might be neat to have a HERO game that continually and organically adds RPG features. "You've discovered 'armor subtracts from damage'!"

The UOO part is considered either the worst or best aspect of the Alcohol power.

Okay, instead of PD maybe a Breakfall bonus. I thought that had been scientifically proven

"Yeah, I got INT 7, DEX 8 and EGO 9, so I'll totally rock at PS:Plumber!" Hmm, wait, that would actually work for a Paranoia game. Then again, so would FATAL.

No agonizing over "bad rolls", esp. compared to those of more lucky players? You clearly play with a party of Buddhas

It does increase your PD, though.

No one from my current group played HERO before, and I ran into surprisingly few problems, even with the additional hurdle of a language barrier. Starting with fewer points removes a lot of the issues, so just the guys who'd be inclined to play the mechanically heavy characters in other games should have powers (that would be the one guy who always plays minmaxed wizards etc.). Didn't have any issues with the point buy system, but again, not a lot of points anyway, plus help from Hero Designer. But if I were to simplify, I'd rather go with "stat arrays" than with random rolling (for the base stats, OCV/DCV/BODY/SPD/etc. are fixed at first). A limited skill list where players just pick a few -- including one or two combat skills levels (3-pointers). Not everything needs to be fixed, but it should be neatly packaged. So after skills and basic chars are done, one might pick from a choice of "combat", "education" or "toughness". That gives you the same points in OCV/DCV, additional skills and END/STUN/BODY, respectively. If there are not a lot of powers involved at first and combats are short enough, there's no need to involve END. First two things I'd try to include is basic order (no SPD, so basically just DEX ranks and aborting actions) plus Normal vs. Killing Attacks and how to read dice. After that, most things tend to resolve themselves -- a player will ask whether he can trip or grab someone, so introduce that maneuver. There are few surprising things here, maybe apart from pulling punches or rolling with blows. I probably wouldn't got with mutant powers for everyone right from the start, that seems like a needless complication.

And SVG isn't an option for this board, either.

That reminds me of my first game where we had a lot of fun* rolling for saves against gangrene. *) i.e. doing it a few times, than swearing to never enter that page of the rules again, because it's a silly place.

I thought about applying the higher END cost to people wearing armor on their legs, as there's been a large amount of people waltzing around in pretty heavy armor all day, but not the legs. Higher END cost for movement, which might affect LTE, too. Other than that, I'm a bit reluctant to antagonize really buff people in armor.

That's one of the issues, in that regard they've been "sold long". There were lots of polearms that weren't even that large and reach wasn't the primary and sole objective. Just like a bayonet isn't the primary characteristic of a musket. But do any two-handed axes in fantasy art look like a pollaxe or lochaber? No, most of the time they're those silly He-Man doubled bladed types. So there's often an artificial distinction, assuming that every polearm in the hand of players is of the 3m+ type. Which wouldn't be that great in the situations that players face most often, unless we're accounting for it doubling as a ten foot pole.

If the versatility would've been that advantageous throughout history, people would've tried more. And to be fair, the age where cut & thrust swords were common is also an age where the spike count is increasing. Versatility also doesn't help you if one of its parts is mostly ineffective. And the cutting part of swords can be pretty much ignored by anyone armored. Still, swords are quite manageable, especially compared to other weapons, so if every category of weapon should have a bonus, I can't argue against that, being of the socialist European persuasion. I still get the feeling that spears and polearms are sold short, but that's the case in almost every RPG. Just like slings. I tried my hands at that, too, but that quickly leads into "perfect is the enemy of good": Wouldn't that also require a bit more thought about what's "normal" damage and what's "killing" damage?

Are we back to bodkins being considered anti-armor projectiles? I thought that was discredited a couple of years ago, as there's scant evidence for hardened bodkins.

It's quite easy to put a spike on pretty much anything. Never mind hafted weapons, which can be at least as versatile as a greatsword (which might've gotten its exceptional bonus due to the late Fechtbuch reverence, which seems the millenial equivalent to the 90s "ninja are like totally sweet" supposition). I agree with that conclusion, and I'm a bit torn between the two options myself, to be fair Well, one could probably do more even within what HERO already provides, but it would often clash with genres and require additional steps. Who wants to deal with Reduced Penetration for every edge attack or compare rPD and DC before deciding whether it's normal or killing? I always liked the different armor types that HârnMaster, GURPS or Artesia provided. The latter is even remotely related to HERO Nope. Works perfectly fine against them, too, or nobody would've worn it. Early plate was cheaper, if I recall correctly. It took quite a while 'til we got something that's actually better than good plate. Plenty of historical reports of mail-clad knights resisting arrows just fine.

The "ethnic cool" factor in play again. Just like katanas for some kind of reason had a parry of 2/3 in GURPS instead of the usual 1/2. Or the insane amount of damage a longbow does in HERO (or, strangely enough, a francisca). As of now, I'm more inclined to remove the (IMHO) superfluous advantages, but when the next campaign turns out to be more cinematic, I might feel more generous

I don't quite see the link between OCV and versatility. Multiple attack vectors and thus harder to parry? For all swords? Never mind that polearms clearly outclass swords here. I mean, just look at this magnificient creation!

Sure, and there are games that do that. And if you've got a whole lot of different characteristics, you're coming pretty close to that, too, as then everything just comes down to a more narrow skill category bonus. And some parts would just be general advantages -- superheroic strength really is mostly about lifting ability already. I could certainly live with that, but that would probably require even more de-figuring and removes a neat RPG shorthand that a lot of people got used to.

Sure, but I still don't see a solid reason why I'd grant that much. Just wielding a sword per se doesn't make you more likely to hit than with a mace. And a particularly well-made sword doesn't turn you into a better fighter, there's no real optimum for balance (or even sharphness). I'd be more inclined to grant that if the weapon is really made for the character or that he really got used to it. But that's more a cheaper CSL than an inherent CV bonus. I could go all nostalgic and give swords a +1 DCV that doesn't stack with shields, but just because I've currently got no "enthusiasts" in my group who go on and on about the absence of actual parrying or other boring semi-facts. I didn't mean the weapon's cost here, but about generally raising the average CV+CSL level, so that a +1 from equipment becomes a more minor advantage. But lowering CV and/or CSL costs would require looking at how that interacts with the rest of the system (e.g. damage). Not entirely without justification With different damage/armor types this would be easier. Just going with OCV/DCV/DC in general really limits your options a bit. Of course, one could micromanage the maneuvers and martial arts.

I'm not quite sure how well HERO matches any endeavors of making something realistic and as Markdoc says, at the higher end it's not equipment anyway. But in the narrow range between those two, you'd probably want something that makes more weapons attractive -- or the opposite, if your campaign as a clear bias (I've seen people with pikes in swashbuckling games). I've been trying to do something for my semi-realistic game, but even a +1 bonus is often too much. And more complicated schemes seem an ill fit for HERO -- armor types, maneuver penalties, restrictions on how you can shuffle combat skill levels around etc. If I ever expand the usual range of OCV/DCV by a lot, there might be room for some weaponry detail. But, as always, I dread the repercussions throughout the system regarding cost and balance. Maybe if my new 1+1 skill rule turns out well enough.

When you're holding a spear in the middle, it's surprisingly well balanced. Definitely not worse than shield + axe, which is a unreasonably popular choice in RPGs. And as you're stabbing with it, it's not like you gain that much more leverage when holding it at the end, that's mostly a matter of reach.

This really needs to be a skill.

I'm all for unified systems, but a certain point you'd be doing things for rather dogmatic reasons. Characteristics and skills seem related enough. To be fair, so does combat ability and some characteristics, but there we can argue endlessly about how much something should factor in and how this will affect balance -- and you'll get all the usual problems with dex as god characteristics or the ninjasaurus conundrum. So divorcing combat from the core char set seems a good idea, but removing all connections throughout the game seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I would say that they figure in a bit too high, though. But that's mostly due to the limited spread of skill difficulties and thus skill ratings.

Note that this might be "small" regarding supernatural creatures, but it's still quite a formidable opponent, both in the movie and probably in HERO. This hits a particularly raw spot for me, as I once tried a watered-down version of this to test a new system's lethality. Let's put it this way, you don't want your players to remind you of being killed by a slightly drugged up ox, used by some tax-dodging peasants years after the fact... My current campaign does quite well with a characteristic limit of 15 and 125 points in total. Although I'm seriously thinking about rejiggering characteristic and skill costs, maybe even with separate pools.

Hey, in other contexts I'm perfectly fine with leather lingerie and 80s hair