Joe Walsh

I'm so sad to hear that, of course for his friends and family, but also for the RPG community. Seeing his byline on a product told me that it was going to be great. What a loss for the community. Thankfully his RPG legacy will live on.  

Yup. Forty years ago, I didn't know about game design issues. We just played games and if they were fun we kept playing them.
 
Thirty years ago, I'd fiddle with any issues I found and try to fix everything. I considered it part of the hobby. But only rarely was a game design and its flaws amenable to fixing one thing without breaking one or more others or doing a total redesign...that would have its own issues.
 
These days, I try to run as close to RAW as practical, only applying fixes to issues that have a negative effect on our actual gameplay, and even then only when there's a simple fix that doesn't break anything else.
 
I can applaud the folks still trying to comprehensively fix RPGs that were designed in the paleolithic era, and I can even empathize with them and cheer their successes, but in the end I want a fun game at the table, and all my favorites provided that back before I knew how to recognize game design issues.
 

@GM Joe, I’m with you now. I don’t play really often. So I play (and build) as RAW as possible unless something really irks me. (I’m looking at you, can’t grab and throw a person into another person in the same phase). And I also look to sfx (as in have I seen this before and liked it). Because I will allow sfx to trump the rules in most cases.  

I had a very tough time with that one. I wanted to give up at 30, too, but came back and finished it because I normally love Wes Anderson. It took me three tries. Not one I can recommend. 

Yup. Forty years ago, I didn't know about game design issues. We just played games and if they were fun we kept playing them.
 
Thirty years ago, I'd fiddle with any issues I found and try to fix everything. I considered it part of the hobby. But only rarely was a game design and its flaws amenable to fixing one thing without breaking one or more others or doing a total redesign...that would have its own issues.
 
These days, I try to run as close to RAW as practical, only applying fixes to issues that have a negative effect on our actual gameplay, and even then only when there's a simple fix that doesn't break anything else.
 
I can applaud the folks still trying to comprehensively fix RPGs that were designed in the paleolithic era, and I can even empathize with them and cheer their successes, but in the end I want a fun game at the table, and all my favorites provided that back before I knew how to recognize game design issues.
 

The first episode of Moon Knight shows promise.

Yup. Forty years ago, I didn't know about game design issues. We just played games and if they were fun we kept playing them.
 
Thirty years ago, I'd fiddle with any issues I found and try to fix everything. I considered it part of the hobby. But only rarely was a game design and its flaws amenable to fixing one thing without breaking one or more others or doing a total redesign...that would have its own issues.
 
These days, I try to run as close to RAW as practical, only applying fixes to issues that have a negative effect on our actual gameplay, and even then only when there's a simple fix that doesn't break anything else.
 
I can applaud the folks still trying to comprehensively fix RPGs that were designed in the paleolithic era, and I can even empathize with them and cheer their successes, but in the end I want a fun game at the table, and all my favorites provided that back before I knew how to recognize game design issues.
 

I’m with @Duke Bushido with the math obsessed pipe dream. And I used to be one in that I believed that if I just copy down recommended guidelines then everything would fall into place. 
 
But semi-seriously how many points on average do you guys spend on martial arts? (I would assume more at Heroic level do to W.F.’s) I buy roughly 5 maneuvers which averages out to 20 points. Now factor other skills, around another 20 pts. 

I just want to say, it's so great to see new products coming out regularly again, thanks in large part to HERO Games' decision to start the Hall of Champions program and HEROphiles' willingness to step up to the challenge of becoming Champions.
 

I take a different approach.
 
Damage should be Normal Damage and Killing Damage.
Each automatically takes either ranged or STR adds to damage as a default.  Each costs 5 points per DC, regardless of which you pick.  You can take a limitation to remove the range or STR adding.  You choose energy or physical.
 
There's zero justification for the auto limitation on HA.  Its the same as HKA, but for normal damage.  Why does HA get the limitation but HKA does not?  It is a wierd pointless throback to the 3 points per d6 days (oh the fun I had with that and variable advantage).

Why should HA be a power at all?  Is it really anything other than limited STR?  Make HA STR only for direct damage, -1/2.  Then get rid of MA DC's - instead, STR, only enhances combat effects becomes -1/4.  Losing Lift is not that big a deal.

Ah...
 
 
Okay folks, let's see if we can get a gasp of exasperation out of Hugh! (Sorry, Hugh, but in fairness, you saw this coming when he opened the door, didn't you?  ).
 
So this would work akin to killing attack at 15 pts, which adds to STR or RKA at 15 pts which adds no STR but does have range.
 
Which suggests that there is a 10-PT base of "Killing Dice," to which we can add ranged or. Strength adds to damage,
Leading us to a 20 point ranged killing attack to which we can add STR.
 
And which, in keeping with the ioening theme of the discussion, screws up the DCs all over again.
 
Semantically, loooking at the 4e 3pt hand attack, to get a DC for 3 pts.  Considering "strength adds to damage' to be its own advantage- and knowing that 'ranged' already _is_ its own  advantage, we have Killing dice doing 3DC for 10 pts.
Weirdly, this almost fixes it (there is that odd little point there- 3/9 vs 3/10, but hey; its closer than what we had before we just assumed "STR: only for damage" or "blast: no range", when we were buying 3 DC for nine points or killing attack as we knew it: that is, ranged and HKA with its 3 DC for 15 points.
 
Of course, this goes back even further, because at 10 points for a base Killing Die, we can also infer that there is a +1 advantage "Killing" that can be applied to a regular die of damage.
 
Granted, that means in 4e terms that you can pay either 15 pts (per RAW) and ads STR, _or_ you can pay 10 pts to get a Killing Die that neither adds STR nor Range.
 
But since 4e did not define _why_ Hand attack was 3 pts, but left it as a complete power, I could _instead_ put the +1 Killing on _that_ die, giving me a 6-PT die that ignores non-resistant DEF and has no range and doesnt take an STR bonus.
 
And the very idea of most of what I said rankles a lot of folks, in spite od the fact that I could build the same thing from the as-is powers and appropriate limitations and get to the exacr same place.  Regardless, "Killing" as an advantage, or a 10 it Killing Die as the root of both veraions of Killing are things that, to quote Word, "we so not speak of it."
 
 
Now to be fair, I don't care (nothing like full disclosure), and the newer and more complex and hyper-specific the rules set, the less I care about the "official rulings" on anything.  I am going to do my thing my way and no one here will ever know it, which males the consternation about this concept little more than a source of amusement for me (though having been through other conversations about it, I know that it kind of bugs a lot of people; I only called Hugh by name because he is, by long-established history, a very good sport about a little good-natured ribbing. 
 
And because this is nothing more than that, I am going to just leave ir alone now.
 

 
 
 
 

That may just have been the result of all the debates and questions asked about how it worked with Advantages and Doubling.

It is not completely unnecessary as a Power but the costing is problematic.
 
I've long been a believer that HA is best viewed as the No Range, STR adds to damage parallel to Blast which has Range and can be Spread for 5 points per DC. As such it gives use a Power that allows the build of Normal Damage weapons. When it's used to build these, it generally takes a Focus or more rarely a Physical Manifestation Limitation. I also prefer the symmetry of Blast is to HA as RKA is to HKA.
 
While this plugs a hole in the game,  it means you can purchase STR for the same cost though this is not appropriate for every concept.  For my personal use(Champions games almost exclusively), HA is rare enough that I don't have a problem with this admittedly imperfect solution. 
 
Martial Arts DC's are somewhat trickier because they are 0 END and can also add to Martial Flash and Martial NND's. That more than balances the loss of lifting and carrying and I'd price them at 6 points if I was writing a new APG or Rules Edition.

STR still costs END, Martial Arts DC's do not.
 
But ask yourself, are you changing your character concept because STR fits better or because it's just fractionally cheaper?

Well....that was annoying.  Still fairly new Win 11 box blue-screened...2nd time today.  Argh.  And now it's REALLY acting weird.  Warning, folks:  Win 11 is not ready for prime time.
 
I think the fundamental baseline for HA is right in 6E.  Treat as additional STR, with the Limited Power limitation "not for lifting/carrying."  And that only deserves -1/4.  Lifting STR grows exponentially;  damage STR grows linearly.  That's a terrible mismatch, IMO.  But push comes to shove...lifting and carrying STR is much less important than damage, so anything more than -1/4 for HA feels excessive.
 
HKAs:  these are a little different.  Shifting the damage from normal to killing is worth something.  It's not easy to quantify, but it is different.  It allows applications that wouldn't be practical otherwise, because it shifts the emphasis from STUN to BODY.  Something has 10 DEF...doing any notable damage to it with 9d6 normal is not likely, whereas with 3d6 killing, you'll get some.  You can't think just in terms of the DCs.  Yes, I think no price break might be a bit high, particularly with 6E gutting the stun mult...but even -1/4 feels too high.  Doing BODY to break through a defense is too useful.
 
Martial arts DCs:  these are cheap...probably too cheap.  The notion was that, well, you had to buy 10 points in maneuvers...but by and large, there's very few wasted points here, if you're careful with your maneuver selections.  The problem, I think, is that the costs didn't change when figured characteristics disappeared.  (Note that this is a factor in giving HAs a larger limitation in 5E, because now it's saying STR, Does Not Affect Figured Stats.)  I'd also question whether they considered how the increased cost of skill levels (all HTH is 5 points in 5E, and 8 points in 6E, for example) might impact martial arts DCs.  I'm a little less worried about the aspect that they're 0 END implicitly, as everyone learns to manipulate the END breakpoints and the beneficial rounding, but having martial DCs cost at least 5 points per, makes sense.  I might even buy going as high as 6, honestly.  AND potentially rethink the maneuvers themselves. 
 
On the flip side...a nasty complication arises trying to compare the cost of MA DCs to DCs available through converting skill levels into damage.  The issue is:  the cost of those levels is WILDLY variable.  They have to be 3 point levels, sure...but brute types can readily be built with no maneuvers...STR with perhaps a single HA.  Is it better to buy 6 three-point levels, so you get all kinds of flexibility...or go through martial arts?  The former is quite probably cheaper;  it's definitely more flexible.  OTOH, MA DCs can be used in places where skill levels can't...for holding onto, or escaping, a Grab;  and the maneuvers incorporate OCV and DCV bonuses.  Neither approach is universally better than the other;  it comes down to the specific build, and to a degree, one's stylistic preferences, and sometimes the underlying campaign issues.  (When the character's training was formal, with dedicated instructors, I lean to the martial arts route.  More ad hoc, jus the raw skill levels.  That can be, in part, campaign-related.)
 
Last comment...my Win 11 box appears to be behaving after a full shutdown and reboot, I think the problem is either coming out of sleep mode (I've been putting it to sleep at night), OR issues related to graphics mode shifts (which are clearly awkward and slow) running older games.  WIzardry 8 right now.  Generally speaking, the root problem is that the game's point system isn't that fine-grained;  advantages and limitations in particular are very coarsely grained.  So some of this is probably inherent...and some of this may well be unrecognized side effects when some major rules changed between editions.  

The special hit location provides a way to avoid the all or nothing aspect.  Use a head shot (head and shoulders) instead of a called shot head.  The OCV penalty is only -4 and you have a 33% chance to hit the head.  If you miss you are going to get the arms, hands or shoulders.    

I believe the only thing 5e did differently for Hand Attack was to "justify the extant price."  If you weren't already doing it, then it upped the AP officially, in print, instead of leaving you to wonder if you should go ahead and,do it or not. 
 
 

Thank you very much for replying!

Russia's already doing that for them:
 
The Ukrainian Army Has More Tanks Now Than When The War Began -- Because It Keeps Capturing Them From Russia
 

Good point, they could have handled Reputation like Charges, with positive, negative, and neutral options. Unusual Appearance could have been handled that way as well. That's been obvious since at least when Victory Games' James Bond 007 was released. That game made being ugly and good looking both cost less than it cost to be average looking, since in either case you're more memorable, which is a liability for any secret agent. With HERO, it could have been left up to the player what game effect they wanted for their character's appearance. Rather, what they wanted the most frequent effect to be, since lots of things can be a positive or negative given the right situation (as you point out below).
 
 
That brings back good memories of the early days, back when we only needed to concern ourselves with The One True Way To Play Each Game when we spent the bucks to be at a gaming convention. Not that people don't houserule today, and not that people didn't send in SASEs asking for an official rulings back in the day, but the One True Way approach does seem to have become steadily more common over the years to the point that the former is less a part of the hobby than it once seemed to be.
 
Speaking of which, as I go through the rulebooks and rule-bearing supplements to remind my aging brain what was newly minted for a given edition, what was changed, and what was carried forward without change (and, not incidentally, to distract myself from Real Life), the books are working against me in frustrating and all-too-familiar ways.
 
4e: "Here's are nice lists of Skills, Perks, Talents, and Powers. What? You want a list of Advantages? Limitations? Disadvantages? GTFO! Go through every page you lazy bum!"
5e: "Yeah, what they said. Well....OK. I'll give you Function Tables, but they won't be useful for your purpose."
5eR: "(sigh) Fine. Here's your frickin' summary tables."
 
Or:
4e: "I'll make separate chapters for Skills, Perks, Talents, Powers, Advantages, Limitations, Frameworks, and Disadvantages. Then I'll sprinkle a few Powers and Power Modifiers throughout the rulesbook. They'll be like Easter Eggs!"
5e: "A lot of people say eggs are cheaper by the dozen, but if you buy wholesale you can get them in crates of 180! Wouldn't it be fun to try finding that many Easter Eggs?"
 
Or:
4e BBB: "Index? You want an index?? What a loser."
4e HSR: "Well, OK, you can have an index, but not a useful one."
5e: "Here's a comprehensive index. The index of your dreams! But it's in a font size that only an ant could appreciate. Enjoy!"
 
(No disrespect to the folks behind those editions. I've produced enough stuff in my life to know that there are always compromises, and the product is never as good as you would have wanted it to be if you'd had unlimited time and money. Just having a bit of fun after spending too many hours poring over HERO System rules.)
 
I guess that's a good reason to stick with 2e, which is small enough that a list of what's on each page can be kept in your head.
 
 
 

I've attached the results of my searches for the origins of 5e skills/talents/powers/etc., should anyone be interested. There may be more to be found, but I will probably stop here for now.
 
I ended up approaching the writing of the document from the perspective of, what if you wanted to start with the 4e rulebook and then add all the skills/powers/etc. that 5e has that the 4e rulebook doesn't (not including all the various little Advantages and Limitations sprinkled throughout the text; just the ones that got their own entries in the appropriate chapter), but didn't want to just copy/paste from 5e wholesale but instead wanted to draw from 4e supplements as much as possible.
 
Thank you for all the help and advice!
 
HERO System 4e Modernization Supplement.docx
 

Good point, they could have handled Reputation like Charges, with positive, negative, and neutral options. Unusual Appearance could have been handled that way as well. That's been obvious since at least when Victory Games' James Bond 007 was released. That game made being ugly and good looking both cost less than it cost to be average looking, since in either case you're more memorable, which is a liability for any secret agent. With HERO, it could have been left up to the player what game effect they wanted for their character's appearance. Rather, what they wanted the most frequent effect to be, since lots of things can be a positive or negative given the right situation (as you point out below).
 
 
That brings back good memories of the early days, back when we only needed to concern ourselves with The One True Way To Play Each Game when we spent the bucks to be at a gaming convention. Not that people don't houserule today, and not that people didn't send in SASEs asking for an official rulings back in the day, but the One True Way approach does seem to have become steadily more common over the years to the point that the former is less a part of the hobby than it once seemed to be.
 
Speaking of which, as I go through the rulebooks and rule-bearing supplements to remind my aging brain what was newly minted for a given edition, what was changed, and what was carried forward without change (and, not incidentally, to distract myself from Real Life), the books are working against me in frustrating and all-too-familiar ways.
 
4e: "Here's are nice lists of Skills, Perks, Talents, and Powers. What? You want a list of Advantages? Limitations? Disadvantages? GTFO! Go through every page you lazy bum!"
5e: "Yeah, what they said. Well....OK. I'll give you Function Tables, but they won't be useful for your purpose."
5eR: "(sigh) Fine. Here's your frickin' summary tables."
 
Or:
4e: "I'll make separate chapters for Skills, Perks, Talents, Powers, Advantages, Limitations, Frameworks, and Disadvantages. Then I'll sprinkle a few Powers and Power Modifiers throughout the rulesbook. They'll be like Easter Eggs!"
5e: "A lot of people say eggs are cheaper by the dozen, but if you buy wholesale you can get them in crates of 180! Wouldn't it be fun to try finding that many Easter Eggs?"
 
Or:
4e BBB: "Index? You want an index?? What a loser."
4e HSR: "Well, OK, you can have an index, but not a useful one."
5e: "Here's a comprehensive index. The index of your dreams! But it's in a font size that only an ant could appreciate. Enjoy!"
 
(No disrespect to the folks behind those editions. I've produced enough stuff in my life to know that there are always compromises, and the product is never as good as you would have wanted it to be if you'd had unlimited time and money. Just having a bit of fun after spending too many hours poring over HERO System rules.)
 
I guess that's a good reason to stick with 2e, which is small enough that a list of what's on each page can be kept in your head.
 
 
 

SCUBA Hero: The site's probably not dealing well with the last part of that link. I think it should work if you get rid of the ? and everything after it.

SCUBA Hero: The site's probably not dealing well with the last part of that link. I think it should work if you get rid of the ? and everything after it.