Tywyll

How would you build a spell like Divination in D&D? The one where once a week you can ask your god (gm) three questions?

No, that was the other guy who complained you should use Gm's common sense and not also make rules by Fiat. Which is silly. Agreed. Yes, I would prefer that there were rules to cover it. Which was why I went with the house rule I mentioned earlier. However, the other guy refused to let it drop and kept exclaiming the the rules as written were 100% fine with no need to make a house rule. Which seems totally cool by me. I wanted to start this game in 4th edition, but Hero Designer is just too easy to use and without something comparable for 4th, I couldn't justify the time I'd spend statting out everything on paper.

That seems unneccesary. Of course I can use the rule from 6E, but it doesn't fix the problem. It just takes away the benefit of running around someone in a circle, it doesn't actually remove the ability to do it. It doesn't remove the ability to run past combatants and ignore them to get behind something or someone they are defending which are additional concerns about the spinning dance mechanic.

I'll have to disagree, as I feel several crossed the line. Sadly, the other guy just went through and hit a bunch of posts of mine with Downvotes, even those that had nothing to do with him. So, there's your target audience.

I suppose you could tack on a location and do some 'setting' detail and attach the adventure to it? Like you, I was super hoping to see adventures and I can't imagine a reason why they'd be forbidden. It must be a typo. And what's the point of using an existing setting if you can't use existing characters? I took those restrictions to mean you couldn't publish their stats (which I understand). But maybe I misread them?

That of course isn't, but the discussion wasn't about group table rules. It was always about the GM exercising 'common sense' and making a ruling or restiction, which would by definition be ruling from GM fiat. I understand why the other guy can't admit that because it would mean admitting his arguement was inconsistant. Why do you care about the terminology? How is a GM passing a judgement call/house rule, for whatever reason, not GM fiat? And I get the vibe that if it were, that would somehow be bad? Am I picking you up right? Why would that be the case? No, and you've been nothing but polite and helpful. I have no issue with you (or anyone else on the board). What I want is to be able to discuss issues with the system without someone edition warring or making snide insults against me or my group. I don't care if someone disagrees with me, I just don't like insults and edition wars. My players just came from playing a very tacticle game where positioning was ultra important, so yeah, they are doing everything they can to get into a better attack position. Despite insults to the contrary, there is nothing inherently munchkin about using the rules as they are written. Most games with map based combat avoid this sort of thing with either an engagement rule, abstracting combat so position doesn't matter, or, more recently, attacks of opportunity (or the equivalent). But when they aren't there, and facing is an issue, and position matters... it's natural to attempt to maximize bonuses. I think Hero just needs to pick one or two of those options (or be house ruled as I have done) to fix the inconsistancy. But yes, it's silly and I've fixed it with aborting to attack someone if they try something like that (this also allows some tacticle exploitation, because if your armored mate runs past and eats their attack, your lightly armored figure can go after without fear because they have already aborted).

Yup, sounds reasonable to me. Though I would also argue that you ought to be able to prohibit circiling outside of your phase. Like the one hex shift rule (or 5' step in D&D) from TFT makes sense, you slowly and methodically move so as to not leave yourself open to an attack. But if you go fast you can be attacked (or in TFT's case you simply cannot move more than one hex while engaged).

Thank you. Absolutely agreed on both counts. Oh, I use rule from different editions. The problem with the 'fix' in 6e is that it still doesn't prevent dancing around a static, aware opponent. It doesn't go far enough I guess? That's basically all I'm saying.

Absolutely. It's impossible. And the rules should reflect that (making allowances for genre of course, speedsters et al).

That's an absolute lie, if you need a reminder, just reread your posts. And no, you downvoted comments that disagreed with you, I've not been rude once, nor edition warred against you.

No, I downvoted your rude and insulting posts. You then just went and downvoted everywhere I disagreed with you, because unlike you, I've not made snide remarks or personal insinuations. So, it's hardly tit-for-tat. You got downvoted for making rude remarks. But hey, you believe what you want to believe and just do you.

fiat /ˈfiːat,ˈfʌɪat/ noun a formal authorization or proposition; a decree Whether its based on 'common sense', feelings, or the phase of the moon, any such ruling is a GM's fiat.

I'm not so sure how that is any easier than simply invoking a 'threatened hex' rule or allowing an Abort to attack against someone blithly ignoring somone. Those are rules that have teeth (and can be seasoned to taste in regards to Move Through and Move By) rather than simply the GM asking the player to be reasonable. There will always be a situation where it's justifiable to ignore common sense because 'this time there are reasons!'. My experience in both boffer and martial arts is exactly that. It's impossible to get around an opponent one on one, unless they slip or trip or something. Only when facing multiple opponents is that a possibility. Yeah, I agree.

You assume B has never acted, or A for that matter. The instant one of them acts, the twrling back stab fest begins. That's why your example falls apart. Once one of them acts, you know, attacks, they are then frozen and that is NOT how a real knife fight goes. The 'opening' a fighter is looking for is not one that allows them to get 180 degrees behind an opponent. I never suggested such a fix nor would I want it. Because if you are making a call based on feelings or common sense or personal taste, going outside RAW, that is you are exercising GM fiat. All Houserules are GM fiat. Wow...sexism too. That's great. Your high speed fighter has then just left themselves open to being stabbed in the back. It does not address being able to move around an armed opponent with impunity.

Lots of snide, derogatory, and dismissive remarks being thrown around. Maybe you missed me and my group being snidely derided?

Lol! That's funny. Thanks for that. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Seeker...never liked him (his backstory being a big reason), so I am glad to see him go. I always wondered why it changed.

This example is completely wrong. Fighter A uses 3" of movement and now is completely behind his opponent, at which point he stabs the guy. He has zero reason to hold his action. B is frozen from his previous action last round. After he's stabbed in the back and survives, he then repeats the process on A who's facing is held by his attack, leaving his back exposed. Tell me in what world is this gameplay desirable? What genre of action or real life fighting encounter does it emulate? This is not what Defensive Maneuver was created for, I don't believe, it was created for fending off multiple attackers and surprise attacks. And none of this accounts for the various reasons one might want to block a target's movement, something done in real and cinematic life by the threat of attacking them if they try to run around you. As it is now, you can't protect an ally behind you, or block a villain from reaching the missile launch control button because they can just run around you (yes, I know you can block for someone else, but that's it). Just having a bad guy run past you without being able to slow them down is an issue.

You don't seem able to keep a consistant arguement going... "GM common sense should always apply... The problem is easy enough to put an end to without resorting to GM fiat, " Since there are no rules prohibiting endless circling for the attack from behind bonus, any GM ruling from 'common sense' would, in fact, be GM Fiat. So which should it be? Use their common sense and make a house rule like I and several other GMs did (as stated above) or allow munchkin silliness to happen that can't work in reality? By your own argument you can't have both. Further, the fact you've seen it at all is poor design. The fact that it took 6 editions to comment on it shocks me, especially considering the minutiae in which so much else is covered in HERO. But I guess some people would rather defend bad design than acknowledge there is a flaw in a system they like. Also, your example of the rotation and half phase held actions doesn't work in the first round of combat with the faster opponent, nor does it work when the two fighers are sharing the same hex (at which point one of them steps out of the shared hex for the backstab). I think the problem is that HERO tried to have it both ways, for rules for theatre of the mind and map based game play, without really shoring up both. So you end up with weird inconsistancies like the one we are talking about.

Actually, what is the story if you don't mind sharing? I was very confused with the changes when I look at my various books. What happened to Jaguar and the mystic woman in 4th Ed (I assume Witchcraft replaced her, but why?).

I think you are still missing the point though. People move in fights. They turn to face someone threatening them. They don't freeze after moving, allowing an attacker to run behind them and hit them. Everything you've mentioned doesn't deal with the issue that characters can move behind each other on their phase to get a bonus in a way that is ridiculous and impossible in real life. Sure, put your back to a wall when facing multiple attackers., or rely on defensive maneuver. You shouldn't need either of those things when it is one on one, but currently you do, and that is insane.

Which is weird considering 'facing' doesn't seem to be a thing in HERO?

Is there a Hero Designer character pack for the Champions 5th edition book? Specifically one that includes the templates for the random roll hero rules? I looked in the store but couldn't see it.

Holy crap, here it is from Fred "Hand-To-Hand Combat (HTH): Combat between characters who are standing in the same or adjacent hexes. Usually HTH Combat involves punching or melee weapons such as swords, not attacks which work at range (such as guns or energy blasts)."

But is the default assumption that 'HTH range' (like when you buy a power with no range) would be in the same hex?

You shouldn't need point spending to stop behaviour that literally CANNOT work in most situations in real life or cinematic life.