Tywyll

HOnestly I don't know anything about Roll20, other than that it costs.

I need something where I can build a map easily and have characters move around on it. 

For me, I'd be far more interested in 'running gods as PCs' then I would be in Dieties and Demigods style write ups. I know the D&D write ups is primarily what this book will be about, but allowing players to play gods is an untapped genre in HERO and something of a popular conceit in many games these days. 

I would be interested not only in the typical powers of gods (immortality, commanding the elements, etc) but in their background abilities that interact with their worshippers (hearing prayers, appearing before worshippers from across the planet, building an afterlife and guiding a soul there, etc). 

So, thanks to Corvid, my group will be meeting online from now on. So I need a decent program to run combats online.

Mostly I want some thing easy to use and learn, preferably free. It doesn't have to be fancy, just have a map an figs.

I have the tts app for Hero and it is incredible, but none of my players have tts and I think learning it will be more time intensive than I can/they will spare.

On 3/13/2020 at 4:15 PM, Tjack said:

 

     What you’re talking about would be “The Book of Ordinary Stuff”.  A game book three times the size of Ninja Hero or Mystic Masters that had nothing but the stats for everything in the world.

No, it doesn't have to be. We already have a book of equipment with lists for mundane objects and tables including Body and Def. An extra column with AP is all that is needed. An additional guideline on how you can figure it out should it be hard to build via a power would be sufficient. 

On 3/13/2020 at 4:15 PM, Tjack said:

    No one would buy it ‘cause you don’t really need it.  
    When the tornado or tidal wave comes, the GM just has to say “it destroys the the town.”  And 99.44/100th’s % of players will never have the points to completely stop it.  STOP SWEATING THE SMALL STUFF!!!!!

I absolutely disagree. If you are playing a Heroic level game, then sure, fine. If I'm playing champions? Then yes, I absolutely expect a super to be able to deal with burning buildings and natural disasters. That's what they do beyond punching bad guys. 

On 3/13/2020 at 4:15 PM, Tjack said:

The GM/DM of a game isn’t like the dealer in a card game or the banker in Monopoly. They act as both a guide and a host for their players. And as such, there has to be a level of trust between them and the players.  They’re there to challenge the players not to screw them over.  They know what’s on your sheet.  So if the GM says the catastrophe can be stopped than it can.  If not then it can’t and the heroes have to help the survivors and stop Dr. Evil from causing the next one.

Why are some benchmarks relavent (weight, mph, size) but others aren't? By your logic STR shouldn't tell us how much someone can lift, the GM should just best guess it. Nor do we need to know how fast a character can fly/run (beyond combat speed) because they can get there when the GM says. 

When players and GM's build characters, they want to know what that character can do as compared to others in that world and the world around them. Having benchmarks, especially for supers ('the strength of 20 men!!!') is not only entirely genre relavent, it's pretty much par for the course for any crunchy rpg. We aren't playing FATE (not there would be anything wrong with it if we were). 

If I build 'Fireguy' and want him to be pretty much immune to normal fire, I need to know how much damage normal fire does...if I don't, I'm just wildly guessing and the first time I run into a burning building and get horribly burned there are going to be some crossed expectations. If I want to know if my character is faster than a speeding bullet, I need to know how fast my NCM SPDxMovement is.

If I want to create an X, Y, or Z, why is that suddenly not allowed? If I want to be able to disperse tonadoes, why is that not catered too?

On 3/10/2020 at 5:48 PM, Shoug said:

Well, in the case of creating objects out of thin air, there is a power in one of the APGs called "Object Creation" that helps you... create objects. They recommend using it for mostly only things which couldn't be represented with another power, mundane objects that you'd probably pay money for, but that does seem to be what you're talking about. I recommend checking those books out.

But I also definitely see what you're saying, but I have to disagree a little bit. I think you're having a classic case of "They hinted at a certain design paradigm, but didn't take it to its logical conclusion." I think Hero does better than almost any other system at interacting with the environment in a consistent way with the game mechanics. For most of the really powerful effects that something in the environment can have, there is a power that can be used to represent it. Not all, but most of the ones you really need to be thinking of. The important action set pieces are well thought out in terms of game mechanics. Breaking things is part of the fundamental nature of damage in the game, for example. So it's a situation where the game has done so well at setting up your expectations for how everything works, because it's in general so consistent, that when you find gaps like "what are locks?" and stuff like that, it feels like some kind of massive inconsistency. But the reality is, no other games really do anything like this. 

What are this?

But seriously, you make a decent point. However, after decades, I still want to know things like how strong is an average tornado? How fast does it move (as in SPD and actual Running/Flight)? What's the level of TK or Barrier I need to stop a tidal wave? Hell, why is darkness only a -4 to sight based perception when it should be -infinity?

Benchmarks against real world phenomenom would be great. 

Note, this is not me hating on HERO. Very few games do these things either. I just find it increasinly frustrating with HERO where you normally model just about anything. 

Question about that Object Creation power...does it allow the creation of 'master work' items? Is it purely based on weight and body of an item?

On 3/10/2020 at 5:40 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

The 6th edition Grimoire includes a spell of Locking and Opening (p. 357), also called Charm of Release (p. 326).  The blurb says it's built with Telekinesis and Lockpicking, but the actual build is a Multipower with Lockpicking 20- for the opening part and Change Environment: -20 to Lockpicking rolls for the locking part.  (Lockpicking should let you lock a lock as well as unlock it, IMO, but we'll let that slide.)  

 

If I were using that as the "official" build for my unbinding spell in my magic system, I'd just build in a Limitation to binding spells, locks, ropes, handcuffs, and so on, to the effect that they're removed by this spell.  

Yeah, that one isn't as powerful as I want this spell to be, because I want something that undoes all bindings, including things without locks (like spider webs or paralysis spells). 

On 3/10/2020 at 5:09 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

  

 

In some cases, and depending on genre, the handcuffs might have a -1/4 Real Equipment Limitation, akin to Real Weapon and Real Armor.  That Limitation would certainly allow it to be picked.  Entangle, Barrier, and Transform specifically are Instant Powers with an effect that lasts beyond the use of the Power, in much the same way as damage does.  You couldn't Dispel damage, so can you Dispel a created Entangle, Barrier, or Wall?  It also depends on the magic system; I've designed magic systems in which those Powers, and a few others (Mental Powers mainly) can be Dispelled after they're created.  You could either build it into the Power as a Limitation, or state it as one of the default conditions of your magic system.  

In most cases, I would say yes you could dispel those creations, but that's just my take on it. 

On 3/10/2020 at 5:09 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I think Suppress is what you'd want to use rather than Dispel.  In 5e it's its own Power; in 6e it's a build based on Drain.  Dispel against armor is definitely against a Power (Resistant Protection), while there's some... thought... about whether you can use Dispel on a sword's HKA.  My view is that there's some definitional stuff going on so that no, you can't ordinarily, but I imagine I'm in the minority; for instance, HKA is an Instant Power, so when you attack someone with your sword, technically you're activating the Killing Attack, Hand-to-hand Power (0 Phase action) then attacking with it (Half-Phase combat action).  You can't really Dispel a Power that is not currently activated, so the only time you could Dispel the HKA is when they're actually attacking with it.  I'll admit that my view is getting pretty deep into the weeds, though, and that it would be easier just to allow it.  

This is an instance were aborting to a power would be something I would allow, since you are defending yourself by dispelling the weapon that is attacking you.

On 3/10/2020 at 5:09 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

With Transform, there are a couple of competing system level imperatives; typically, creating food, chain, or lock, are the results of using other Powers (Life Support and Entangle respectively) and would be used instead of Transform.  As a GM you can decide to handwave these.  

 

Assuming you (or the GM, if that's not you) have done so... with Transform, you'd ordinarily roll the dice, and need to achieve twice the target's BODY in order to Transform it.  An easy rule of thumb is that when creating objects or substances out of thin air, you can create half the BODY roll worth of the substance.  So for example, if you're creating ice using Transform: Thin Air to Ice, and you roll 10 BODY on your Transform dice, you're creating (10 / 2) 5 BODY worth of ice.  On the Object BODY table in the Breaking Things section (6e2 p. 172, but it's in 5ER, 5E, and the BBB as well, towards the back) 5 BODY worth of unliving is 25kg, so that 5 BODY comes out to 25kg of ice.  (The Breaking Things section can be generally helpful when figuring out how much BODY, X kilograms of something has, or the DEF and BODY of a wall of material Y, at Z millimeters thick.)

Hum...I hadn't connected those dots. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

On 3/10/2020 at 5:09 PM, Chris Goodwin said:

Assuming you don't want to use Transform for some reason, Entangle creates an object with 1 rPD, 1 rED, and 1d6 Normal dice of BODY (average of 1) for 10 points; Barrier uses +1 point for +1 BODY, +3 points for +2 rPD or rED.  The Advanced Player's Guide 2 includes a new Power: Object Creation, based on these costs: 20 points for an object up to 2 rPD, 2 rED, 2 BODY, +3 points for +2rPD, +2 rED, or +3 BODY.  Create Object specifically disallows using Create Object to create an object that another Power reasonably would, including chains (Entangle) and swords (HKA) as examples, but also warns the GM and players not to strain the definition of "reasonably" too hard, meaning that if it makes sense and isn't abused, then yes, you can let Object Creation create swords. 

 

I recommend buying the APGs if you don't have them, even if you don't use 6th edition, because they're pretty applicable to 5th as well.  

 

I do have the first one. I'll have to look into the second, thanks!

6 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Time to use one of the go to kludge powers.

 

So, Extra Dimensional Movement, Usable as an Attack, Variable SFX with only vs Restraints is the what I'm coming up with here. 

 

Banish that lock or barrier to Chaos while leaving everything around it untouched.

That...might work actually. I'd prefer the locks open or restraints fall off the captive, but that might work.

8 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

There's no game mechanic that I'm aware of that a lock is or has that is a Power that can be Dispelled, and I'm not sure there should be.  (Or, at least, I'm not sure there should reasonably be.  This reminds of me of when it was in vogue to try to design things such as a towel or a cereal bowl using HERO System Powers.  As an exercise, maybe, but that way lies "You can't have a cereal bowl because you didn't pay points for it.")

 

In general, I agree with you. But when handcuffs are officially statted as Entangles and ropes as Cling (at least I've seen them handled that way), that kind of implies everything is a power and therefore open to being Dispelled. I mean, if I can dispel someone's sword or armor, why not a lock? Why not a wall?

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I agree with Chris as to the metaphysical definition, particularly if one is dealing with "magic," where the logic of it is imaginative rather than realistic.

 

For example, the spell could draw on the power of the Archetype of Chaos, to counter any manifestation of Order which restricts a being's freedom to act.

Being a Goddess of Chaos, yeah, that's partially what's going on here. 

7 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

It's a spell of unbinding.  "Binding" can have a metaphysical meaning in terms of the magic system, and the spell of unbinding does exactly what it says.  Tywyll, is this a reasonably accurate description?  

 

If it unbinds binding spells, not just physical bonds, then you might want to add a Dispel component against spells using Entangle, Barrier, and Telekinesis.  

 

More generally, usually DEF, BODY, and/or dice of damage are the way environmental effects interact, and those are easy enough to oppose with Powers including Dispel.  

Yes, the character worships a goddess who's portfolio is freedom, so a spell that can free a target from any binding or restraint, be it a chain, a spider's web, a paralysis spell is what I'm trying to create. Hence looking at Dispel. This is further complicated that I need to cram as much as I can into a single slot of a multipower, because magic in my setting is built as MPs, where characters have limited numbers of slot based on a stat/3. If I could Dispel a physical object as well an active power, that would elegantly resolve my issue, but I'm beginning to think a Drain might be the most suitable solution. 

But ignoring that for a moment, the fact that real world objects don't have values that powers can easily interact with is still a gripe. No I don't want bowls to have stats, but I do want to know how much Transform I need to roll to create food from thin air, or create a chain, or a lock that has a -3 to peing picked. I want to know how much strength or telekenisis I need to hold back a tsunami or a tornado.

8 hours ago, mallet said:

Specifically relating to locks and entangles, etc... remember that the special effect of the entangle does have a baring  on how to escape them. 

 

From 6th Ed Vol.1 pg. 216:

 

 

 

This means that if the entangle is built as chains and a lock, handcuffs, a rope tied in a knot or whatever physical manifestation like that, then picking the lock, opening the lock, untying the knot, or whatever will "dispel (for lack of a better word)" the entangle. You don't need two separate spells or powers to do that. A simple unlock spell will handle both. 

Which makes sense a cop puts handcuffs on someone, he doesn't need to then "dispel" the entangle with some special power, he just uses a key to unlock them. And any character that can pick locks and escape without "dispelling" the Entangle power. 

 

This is one of those situations where the Special Effect specifically allows for other ways of countering the power without needing "Dispel X" or "Drain X", common sense is the main thing here. 

How does one determine the difficulty of picking an 'entangle'? I can buy a masterwork lock with a penalty to being unlocked. Does a 2d6 Entangle suffer that? Also what about a 10d6?

And the spell is about granting a target (not just the caster) freedom, so it should really work on any entangle, hence my looking at Dispel.

9 hours ago, Shoug said:

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more with "This spell has no clear special effect." It's an incredibly elegant special effect, especially because it is magic and not superpowers. The spell isn't some kind of idiot lockpicking ghost, or merely "telekinesis with fine control so he can pick the lock without lockpick, oooooh." Those obviously do not free you from an entangle. No, the spell could be called, "Liberate." It just... liberates things. Locks unlock themselves, ropes untie themselves, chains break, the spell liberates anything which is physically confined in some sort of concrete, physical way. It can't change the intentions of captors or make them let you go, it can't magically teleport a priceless jewel out of a guarded museum, and it can't emancipate you in the eyes of the law. But if you were trapped in a steel cage welded shut, it could break the cage. If you were buried alive, it would make the soil sink around you and the casket come unnailed. This is a wicked cool spell.

Thank  you. Yes, that is exactly what I'm trying to create. 

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

A lock isn't really a Power, nor is it even an effect that is typically statted out using Powers.  

 

Typically, the Powers that are used on a physical lock are Transform (locked to unlocked), Drain (DEF/BODY of the lock), Blast/Killing Blast, Tunneling, or Lockpicking built as a Skill-as-Power.  

 

For things like fire, ice, lightning, etc., you can look in the "Living In A Dangerous World" section to figure out about how much damage an effect will do, then use that as a guesstimate for how many Active Points worth.  

 

Dispel is intended more for active effects (usually attacks) or Powers as they are being activated, rather than continuing effects.  I'd allow it to work on environmental effects like fire, ice, lightning, etc., but not passive effects like rock, water, gravity, air.  At the very least, you want Dispel to target a Power of some kind; in the event of damaging effects, there are a lot of those that fall out as Blast, Killing Blast, Drain, Transform, etc.  What Power does a lock have?  (I know, that's more or less the question you asked.) 

 

As a GM, I would probably look at a different Power.  Namely, what Power could someone use to escape Entangles, untie ropes, open locks and bindings, etc.?  I'd go with Telekinesis with Fine Work.  For the lock opening aspect I'd throw in Lockpicking as a Skill-as-Power.  As an alternative, Contortionist helps you escape Entangles, which suggests an alternative.  Lockpicking (Skill-as-Power) plus Contortionist (Skill-as-Power).  

 

In one of the 6e supplements (either Champions Powers or HERO System Grimoire) there is an example of a lock opening power (I'm pretty sure it's a spell, and I'm pretty sure it's in Grimoire) that's built using Lockpicking.  I'd look at that for an example of something in a published product.  

So my issue with this are several fold:

1) If the binding is defined as an entangle, skills suddenly don't work...so that option doesn't really fly for me.

2) Dispels and Drains and other powers should interact with the environment, otherwise you are essentially limiting the usefulness of powers (that or skill should interact with powers).

I know this is a holdover from 3rd edition where you had Champions and then you had the various Heroic games and they got smooshed together in 4th edition without much thought. This led to kludges like a spell that needs to be a three or four power Multipower to get out of bindings because it has to cover all the options. To me, that seems unnecessary (or at least inelegant). The game should define the real world with its power system so a character can use their powers (or skills) within that framework.

This has always been a gripe for me...it makes doing superhero activities beyond punching badguys hard to judge. How strong is a tornado? How many dice does a forrest fire have? Etc. etc. etc.

I find the necessity to use three or four different power builds to create a single effect (escape from binding/open locks/etc) to be really aesthetically unappealing. It also is problematic because in my own campaign magic systems are entirely MPs...it means the character needs 3-4 'spells' to do the same thing. One spell to unlock a 'fictional lock' but another to dispel an entangle, even if that entangle is defined as wrapping someone up in a real chain and lock...

So, one thing I DON'T like about HERO is that, while the power system is great for interacting with other powers, there is not a lot of guidance for how it interacts with the environment.

For example, I want to create a spell that allows a character to escape entangles and open locks and bindings. I am thinking a cumulative Dispel with Variable Effect.

However, how may AP does a lock have? If the character wants to use it on a chest in a dungeon, how many times should they cast it? Who knows???

The same problem exists for spells to put out a fire or melt a block of ice... ;(

I know there are some rules for fire in the back of the 6E book, but it doesn't give AP if you want to dispel or suppress or drain it. Ditto for a wall of stone or whatever.

I wish there were more real world values for environmental effects.

14 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

D&D:  AD&D1, B/X, D&D 5e.  

 

Hero:  Champions 3e, Danger International, Fantasy Hero, Robot Warriors, a number of off-genre games using Danger International (sci-fi, Battletech, western). Champions 4e.  Champions Complete/6e. 

 

I've played a lot of DI games without powers.  S. John Ross once wrote how he used DI to get back into the Hero System after the BBB and 5e, and that's partly what directly led Hero Games to come out with Sidekick under 5e.  

 

HERO System without Powers.  Would it sell?  Probably not.  (But would adventures sell?  Probably not.  Yet I still assert they're necessary.)  

 

See also GURPS Lite, and the number of RPGs "powered by GURPS" that use Lite as their basis.  There've been a number of them.  GURPS' power build system is about as extensive as Hero's, only more so, with more special cases and instances of SFX built into the mechanical construct, but they do quite well without having to package it into every single game and genre.  

 

The full HERO System Powers rules are a barrier to entry to the game.  I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face.  Hell, put it on my tombstone, if and when that time comes. 

I think its worth mentioning that GURPS has lost a dramatic amount of market share, at least according to Steve Jackson's qurterly reports. It seems systems to build games are suffering all over. 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Some years back, in a UK museum (IIRC, Scotland, but may have been England), we had a fellow explain a "two handed sword".  It was more or less useless in melee combat, unless its user was huge (remembering that "huge" in the 1200's or 1600's was not as big as today) and exceptionally strong.  It was actually primarily used as a one handed weapon (now, we called it a 2 handed sword - the name locally was more descriptive than game-mechanical). 

 

But it was used from horseback.  One hand held the reins, and the other held the sword, which was simply allowed to swing down in an arc beside the horse, relying on the horse's momentum and some gravity, not the weilder's own muscle power.  Again, though, not very cinematic.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. After the initial charge the weapons were typically discarded or jerked out of their user's hands/stuck in a dead body and they switched to regular side arms. 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

To me, it seems unfair that you would get the full benefit of your STR and weapon damage doing a move by when someone using a bare-handed attack only gets half their STR.  With a move through, you are not faced with applying half your damage (full if the opponent is not moved), instead risking damage to your weapon.  If that is a real possibility, it is a reasonable tradeoff in its own right.  Allowing full STR with a move through would not bother me that much - the DCV penalty is worse than Move By, and the OCV penalty gets worse the more extra damage you are able to inflict, plus there is that damage to the attacker.

I have no problem with half your str being used for computing damage purposes. My problem is how that interacts with Str Min and the additional OCV penalty it will almost always create. 

See to me this feels like they wanted to bring damage in line with unarmed versions of the maneuver and then someone tacked on the idea of comparing it to STR Min, when that wasn't meant to be used this way. Treating the reduced STR as though the character were actually weaker rather than just a damage equation, creating this absurd breakdown. 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The choice the warrior is faced with, to me, is not "you have half of your chance to hit with a move-by, or you can have your full chance to hit".  It is "you are too distant to close and attack - do you want to attack, despite a hit being only half as likely as in a straight-up melee, or do you prefer not to attack at all?"  Really, he is sacrificing 2 DCV for the possibility of a successful attack - his OCV does not matter if he makes a full move with no attack.

Yes, he is greatly disadvantaging himself for almost no gain...not only is he extremely unlikely to hit, he is also opening himself to counter attack and leaving himself wide open. There is almost no case on the battle-field where this would be worth the risk, making it a garbage maneuver. 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Of course, I view the alternative as "figure out your total DCs with STR and weapon, halve that, and then add the velocity bonus".  You won't take the increased OCV penalty, but I suspect your damage will be reduced instead of enhanced.

In that situation you are trading damage for movement. That's sometimes a fair trade because some damage is better than no damage. But if you can't inflict that damage or your chance is miniscule, then you are getting movement for nothing and opening yourself up to counterattack that will most likely succeed. It is not a reasonable trade.  You are better off just taking a full move and not attacking.

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

How is it any easier than normal movement?  Hero doesn't really do "blocking your path".

It's a bit iffy on moving through an enemies hex. I certainly wouldn't allow it as a GM, not in a heroic game. 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In particular, if your STR is enough that you get extra damage, you do not have a DC or OCV penalty.

No, that is not the case. If I have STR 17 and wield that medium spear, having it dropped to half gives me a -1 penalty when weilding said spear. 

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I don't think you are weaker.  I do think the fact that your feet and legs are being used as propulsion makes them less available to also brace to direct your weapon forcefully and accurately.  

But you also have your weight and physical momentem...being run into by a linebacker hurts more then if they step into you, and that extra force would be just as dangerous with a sharp pointy thing held in front of them.

Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree. I think this is a stupid rule and I'm not going to use it, while you clearly are happy to use it as is. I see no benefit in continuing to rehash the arguement. 

14 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I've always interpreted this to mean that your EXTRA damage from STR is reduced by 1/2.

 

Not that your STR is cut in half before calculating OCV/DC.

 

The idea that running at someone with my spear makes me too weak to use my spear effectively and that I might do less damage ramming someone with a spear than I would just stabbing them both fail the common sense test.

 

You're already taking pretty nasty OCV/DCV penalties to gain the ability to attack with a full move.  Compounding that further seems extra crunchy and punitive.

See that would make sense. Sadly that isn't what is written. It explicitly calls out OCV penalties for having reduced Str on account of Weapons Str Min, hence my issues. It didn't work that way before 5th, but since 5th apparently it does. 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Once you get up to a Competent Normal, we have a 100 point character with 30 points of complications (and he still needs gear).  A skilled normal is (50 with 25).  N0teworthy is 2 (with 15).  These are builds for the three tiers of "Normal" on p 34 of 6e V1.  So those stats are, as indicated on p 34, "The everyday inhabitants of the world".  In other words, they are the non-PC normals.  That would include policemen, street thugs, soldiers, city guards - non PC type characters. 

 

Heroic characters are a cut above, "the best people a typical society can produce".  A Standard Heroic has 75% more CP than a Competent Normal.

Yes, I am aware. What I am saying is that the actual stats provided as examples of character capabilities do not equate to the chart or examples provided in the earlier section of the book Even if they were, someone with 17 points from flaws and starting points could still easily have a 12 STR while rocking a 5 INT or PRE. That would still make them average for that level of character. 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Valdorian is, IIRC, high powered. 

The exact opposite. It's gritty, low-powered, swords and sorcery as opposed to the High Fantasy of Taurakian Age. Characters were supposed to be much weaker and it was the first place I saw them call out that average people were 8's instead of 10's. 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The Guardsman is in the range of a Skilled Normal (with a few stats swapped around).  10 across the board is Noteworthy.  Street Thug is in Skilled Normal territory, as is that Champions soldier.  All, of course, will have their points focused on combat, and all can be built starting from the Skilled Normal template.  Most have LESS STR (and CON) than that template.

 

So a 12 STR or 13 STR is certainly practical for trained, experienced combatants.  But not conscripts similar to that follower, who is not a professional warrior (although he may be training to be one).

Which gets to my point and why I assumed the average soldier would have enough Str to wield their weapon competantly. I don't really care that parts of the books say 'this is standard' if the stats they provide for actual use ignore that section. I'm going to use the default NPCs as my base line regardless of what the other part of the book say because without touchstones, the points mean little to nothing. Certainly most players when building characters are going to look at comparisons to actual stat blocks rather than esoteric 'average bystander' stats. 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

That approach makes more sense to me than basing durability exclusively on DCs.  A wood shaft seems more easily broken than a blade of solid steel.  But it does reflect a tradeoff between "extra damage" and "risk of breaking weapon".  From a "historical verisimilitude" perspective, do you envision a Charge leaving many of those charging looking at broken weapons?

Totally agree. I still use it, despite 6E's rule. 

I envision many weapons broken on an initial charge, especially spears. If not actually broken, at the very least torn from their user's hands if you luckily impaled a guy and he fell, dragging  your weapon down. Despite movies and books to the contrary, many weapons in medieval warfare were meant for initial charges/attacks and then discarded (like two-handed swords) in favor of close-in weapons like short swords or maces. 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I find halving more appropriate for the move by, where any other damage would also be halved (and breaking the weapon is far from likely, but so is taking much damage from 1/3 of the DCs). 

 

Whether accuracy or damage is more valuable is an open question, and depends on the situation.  If I am going from a 75% chance to hit down to a 62.5% chance (12- to 11-), but I am more likely to STUN or KO the target, that could be a very worthwhile tradeoff.  Moving 2 levels from OCV to damage gets me one DC for -2 OCV.  -1 OCV and -1 DC for halving my STR down to a -1 STR min penalty in exchange for +2 DCs from 12 meters running may be a worthwhile tradeoff.  Especially if that means the enemy line has bodies falling, instead of more hits, but everyone still standing, given the charge is as much or more about breaking their morale, and/or their lines.

The flaw there is that you are already penalized for the Move Thru. I mean, if your average soldier's OCV is so high that after their Move Thru penalty they still hit on a 12-...I feel sorry for their opponents (a group of rowdy children, I guess?). You then add additional penalties on top of that. Your two average soldiers, one charges the other. They have the same stats. They both have 1 combat level, which they've assigned to OCV or DCV for attacker and defender, meaning they balance out at an 11- to hit.

But wait! Because Joe is using a move thru and going his full movement, he's -1, dropping his chances from 62.5% to 50%. A whole 12.5% chance less likely to hit (almost a -3 in D&D terms). 

And we are using the rules as written, meaning his half strength gives him an additional -2 to hit! he now hits on an 8-. Or a 25.9%! (-8 in D&D terms) He's less then half as likely to land this hit now. 

This is why it's problematic to me. 

I think had they left the reduced Str for damage purposes I would be okay with it, but stacking these penalties makes the maneuver garbage unless you are fighting things dramatically weaker than you are. 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Especially if I am no longer faced with a serious risk of weapon breakage.

 

But I don't see a Move Through used often - only when the character NEEDS that extra movement to close, so it's a move through or no attack.  Move By is a speedster move, although when I look at the 6e rules, it may be as good a choice as a move through for a fantasy warrior who needs that full move to close.  I don't know that an infantry Charge is "ramming speed".

Speaking of Ramming speed a funny side effect of this fumbling with your weapon thing...because 'missing' on a Move Thru means you keep going, suddenly being too weak to use your spear/sword makes it easier to 'dodge' around someone trying to block your path. 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Funny...Kevin is celtic in origin.  Although adopting one of the variants would have been a better fit.

 

 

It comes from an earlier Celtic name, which is neither spelled nor, I imagine, pronounced the way Kevin is. 

4 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

 

I don't  think that that dumping vehicles/bases and the like is necessary. Instead, I think they need to be simplified and streamlined. In a book about zombies, it would be nice to have base rules to represent fortifications, or vehicles to use and modify in hopes of escaping an infested area. The power sections could also be simplified, having only what was needed rather than a bunch of listings that weren't needed. Again, in the case of a zombie game, give the basics of powers needed to create the zombie horrors you need, plus maybe a few powers that heroes might access (psychic/magic/etc.), but leave the rest as Talents that PCs can access. 

Well, to me that stuff is cruft, even in a survival horror setting. Because players aren't going to build a base with points but with stuff they find in the wilderness, the construct would exist narratively instead of mechanically...like they do in almost every other rpg. Sure, you could add that in via the full rules, but this is about making a stripped down version for quick play.

Ditto with removing the powers. Zombie stat blocks would contain all the mechanics for any power they possessed, listed in normal language. How it interacts with the power system would be unneeded and somewhat detremental to this exercise. 

That said, I would love to see a simplified and streamlined version of Hero, but that is a different project I think.

17 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

well...https://www.behindthename.com/name/kevin

 

Of course, the issue of "real world names" is an issue parallel to "just stupid names" if the game is not intended to have "real world" links.  What would you think of Edward or William?

A little better, but not much. Those don't really fit my setting which isn't old english but depending on the culture more celtic or germanic, with some Russian analogues. At least, that was the campaign where Kev-An played. The one I'm running now is set much earlier in the settings history and is much closer to Greco-roman. 

2 hours ago, drunkonduty said:

How do you @Tywyll. How do you describe a haymaker with a bow? I mean, how does it look in the game?

Long, focused aiming at the exclusion of all other activity (hence the DCV penalty).

Hero is an effects based game. Getting caught up in the names of the maneuver doesn't serve much purpose I don't think. 

I was using Haymakers with Orc Archers last night. Really screwed up my players. 

Doesn't the Spell limitation preclude using Haymakers? Anyway, due to spells being full phase in my game I don't know how that would work exactly?

On 2/18/2020 at 4:08 AM, PhilFleischmann said:

Oh, here's another one for me that has nothing to do with anachronism:

 

Bad names.  If your name is Jim Ward, don't name your wizard character "Drawmij".  If your name is Tom Keogh, don't name your character "Keoghtom".  Don't name the god of insanity "Ssendam".  Don't name your halfling character "Dorfongolf".   You don't have to invent seven languages like Tolkien did, just to name the people and places in your setting, but you should put a little effort into coming up with names that sound reasonable.  There are plenty of fantasy name generators online, and even the worst of these is better than just spelling something backwards.

Oh This...so much this. If players come to my table with stupid character names, I veto them. If they persist, I just have all the NPCs refer to them as a fantisized version of the name until it sticks. I had one player name his character Kevin. So everyone referred to him as Kev-An until all the other players were doing it as well.