Jump to content

Tywyll

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tywyll

  • Rank
    Urban Fantasist
  • Birthday 07/19/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 6962-HERO6e_CharSheetDeluxe_TreChriron_form_forHD_rev1
  2. Yeah, but... CSLsalready accomplish that. It seems a weird design choice. Why pay for an 8 point level with a -2 limitation, Only with Daggers when you could just buy 3 point levels to accomplish it?
  3. Ah, cool, thank you. Now why? Why use an 8 point level with a large limitation when a 3 or a 5 point level would cover the actual cost sans limitations? Because 3 and 5 point levels don't derive from limited 8 point levels (the 3 point levels round up one a one to one basis, but not more than 2, and the 5 point level can't be costed with that limitation)? Compare to MA DC which just cost 4 points each.
  4. Interestingly I think some of the brick trick builds in Complete Brick did something like this.
  5. Can someone help me wrap my head around the actual build for Deadly Blow/Weapon Master in 6th edition? What values are being used? I assume it's purchased as CSL, only for damage...but the pricing seems way off. For the 12 point level, like Daggermaster, it seems like that would be 6 3 point levels, only for damage modifier. That seems costed at a -1/2 limitation, but since you are losing 2/3rds of the utility of the skill level (going from 3 uses to only 1) that seems like it ought to be a -1 1/2 limitation. Is this just 'only versus fire' all over again (i.e. under valuing certain limitations)?
  6. Thanks Duke! I don't want the players to have to perform a vestigle and mostly useless bean counting exercise (since END rarely gets exhausted in the 1 turn combats that FH tends to run). It makes sense with supers with 6 speed spending 6+ END a phase, it hardly makes sense when a character has a 3 spd and spends 2-4. That said, it does GREATLY reduce bookeeping, as only one player has to occasionally count beans (they don't count beans every phase) and the other 4 players get to just take their action and move on. Correct. Personal END only exists to pay attention to long term exercise. We've used it once to see if people could swim underwater while encumbered a long distance and otherwise it just sat on the character sheet. Characters started in 5th ed with their free END and didn't spend any points on it. I don't know if I wasn't clear enough, but this seems to keep coming up. Burning Stun in place of END would ONLY come up for Super-Skills or using magic items that would normally burn a caster's END from their END Reserve. Spells all must come from the END Reserve. A caster cannot spend STUN in place of END Reserve END. The two concepts would not both be active usually on the same character. Joe the fighter might have 'Flurry of Steel' +2 OCV, Costs END -1/2, x2 END Cost -1/2, and to activate it he spends 2 Stun every Phase. The caster would have Fly Spell, 3 END and spend out of their END reserve which recovers more slowly then either Stun or normal END. When the caster's END reserve is empty, he stops flying. Exactly my feeling. Every concept has 'buy in'. And as I said, some example magic systems recommend Talents you have to purchase to use magic that don't actually do anything. This actually does something (gives you your juice) and fits alongside the idea of needing to spend points on the thing you want. You can't play a Brick in supers without spending points on Strength or Growth...why is this so different? 🤔 I see where you are coming from, but I don't entirely agree. Requires a Skill Roll is a limitation that reduces your overall cost on your spells. Maybe not a lot when you add all your other limitations, but it does add a discount to your price. So you are getting a discount in exchange for needing the skill roll. Since my magic system uses multiple MP's to represent suites of spells, getting that discount multiple times seems like a fair trade off. What do the other characters get for free for their concepts though? Everyone can use free equipment in my campaign, and I don't charge character points for magic items they find, so if one concept got a free bump how to I balance that with other concepts? No problem. As always, I appreciate your input!
  7. Have to disagree. One player has to track one thing occasionally versus every player tracking something every phase they act in. That is vastly different in effort and brain space. HERO is already a hard sell to my players and I think demanding everyone tracking END would be a deal breaker, so no, I'm not going to do it. Also in FH, END tracking rarely ever limits characters...few combats last long enough for END to make a difference, so it's a vestigle remainder from super heroes that is unneccesary most of the time.
  8. You're really focused on damage dealing. And if the mage in my group was a blasty caster, then you might have a point. Luckily, she isn't. She's a healer/buffer, meaning she can do stuff conceptually that no one else can do through ordinary concepts. I'm happy to stretch the concept of super skills and allow heroic endeavors for non-casters (hence burning Stun since they don't have another mechanic to deal with it), but no super skill is going to fly or turn desolid and walk through a wall. I am playing HERO, and HERO has base assumptions that despite its claim, do not work for all genre's and settings. Unlimited spell casting is one of them in my opinion. Charges is a terrible cludge to handle powers that are varied in use. Powers with duration need continuing charges, instant powers need regular charges, and there is no easy systemic way to apply those to a casting pool that I have seen. So no, that is an unworkable solution. It's far eaiser to buy an END Reserve and limit its recovery to create the style of play I want. I mean, its almost like the power was built with these sorts of concepts in mind!
  9. Nope, considering it reduces the mechanical burden across the board for all players, I do not see it that way at all. No one has to track END. Mages have 'mana' (i.e. END Reserves) that they have to invest in if they want to use magic. They are choosing the complication to play the concept. To put it another way, no warrior concept HAS to buy MA, but to be really good in combat it behooves them to do so. No one has to be a caster, but if they want to be, they need to buy the thing that powers their magic (kinda like the minimum 10 point spend on MA, plus KS, etc).
  10. I don't like the 'super mage' concept, which pure END casting creates. Wizard's blast away freely or heal or fly without much need to concern themselves under the default model. With an END reserve I've got them only getting REC back every 5 minutes, meaning in a dungeon or something, the choice to rest and replenish reserves carries the very real potential consequence of wandering encounters or other negative effects. You don't get that with the default END model. And again, I don't see it as 'bureaucracy' in the sense that there is little different from requiring a Talent as a gatekeeper for using magic, but get nothing for it other than the ability to then actually buy spells (a number of magic systems I've seen for FH use this model). This accomplishes the same task, but gives the player something concrete they can use on top of the spent points. In addition, it allows for the rare concept of someone who has magic potential (i.e. a small END reserve) that they could use either to power buff spells cast on them, or power items that normally require 'mana', without dipping into the Stun...which again, the default model cannot accomplish. This could be a neat concept for someone who had potential but never received proper training (yet).
  11. Most systems I've played require casters to perform some sort of resource management, so I don't really see anything odd about limiting the resource management to a single character concept. It takes the burden of tracking END for movement and swings from everyone and reduces it to only being tracked in phases when a spell is actually cast...that's a huge reduction in time and energy for everyone (there is only one caster in my group). So I don't see it as running counter to my goals at all. Casters needing to 'buy in' on their powers also doesn't bother me. Spells tend to be more flexible than 'normal' concepts, so its a small gateway price to justify buying the ability to fly, turn invisible, and instantly heal a companion AFAIAC. To be clear, the Stun in place of END would only be for those super-skill type abilities like '+2 DCV, Costs END' that currently already exist. It would just allow me to add them back in the game without fiddling with END.
  12. I'm running FH and I did away with END tracking to help my players learn the system better and play faster (since our sessions are usually only around 3-3.5 hours). Casters have to buy END Reserves, but noncasters don't track END unless there is something extreme (they had to swim underwater for 200'). This makes the game faster and such, but does remove some interesting build concepts for non-casters. I was thinking last night and it occurred to me that maybe in place of END, a non-caster could still buy abilities that 'cost END' but instead of END they cost Stun. This way they can 'exert' themselves, and have abilities that require balancing resources, but without needing to track everything else. Good idea? Bad idea? I don't expect it would come up much, but I'd like to have the option and this seems like a decent way to handle it?
  13. No, that's cool. Knowing it didn't affect the game is still good data. How did you handle damaging the object? What determined if the item was at risk?
  14. So I have decided to shift my game from 5th to 6th edition, mostly because I finally found an awesome character sheet print out for HD that actually looks like a printed character sheet. Anyway, I'm running a FH game and one of the changes 6th ed would have on a couple of the characters is the damage doubling rule being dropped. I know it is still an optional rule, but I was wondering how did people feel about it (especially in the context of FH games). Has it worked out well? Is it a good idea, a bad idea? No real impact? Any insight would be appreciated.
  15. That's how I did it (21 being the target number). Worked great!
×
×
  • Create New...